The jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 227 pertains only to the Debts Recovery Tribunal located within its territorial limits, not an appellate tribunal for matters originating outside its jurisdiction.

Judgment :

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The opposite party no. 1/Bank raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The preliminary objection raised by the Bank is that the petitioners are required to file instant application before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Debts Recovery Tribunal is situated. In view thereof, the parties were invited to advance their argument on the issue of jurisdiction only.

2. Before this Court proceeds to deal with the question of jurisdiction, only the facts that are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue of jurisdiction is set out hereinafter.

3. The opposite party no. 1/Bank filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of the Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short “the 1993 Act”) for recovery of sum of Rs. 22,96,128/- jointly and severally from the opposite party nos. 2,3 and 4 and the petitioner with future interest at 10% per annum with half yearly rests from October 1, 2019 till the date of realization along with costs. The said application which was registered as Original Application no. 120 of 2020 was filed before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad (for short “DRT”).

4. The case made out by the opposite party no. 1/Bank in the said Original Application (for short “O.A.”) is that the opposite party no. 2 availed a loan against the warehouse receipt of the opposite party no. 3. Under the scheme, the opposite party nos. 3, 4 and the petitioner are liable to indemnify the bank by virtue of a tripartite agreement and warehouse management agreement. During the course of routine inspection the bank noticed that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 disposed of the pledged stocks without any notice. The bank issued legal notice to the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the petitioner for breach of respective agreements dealing with the loan transaction. Since the opposite parties and the petitioner failed to clear the loan amount, Bank filed the O.A.

5. Petitioner contested the said O.A. by filing a written statement contending that the petitioner is not liable for any due/ claims in respect of the quality or quantity of the debts deposited, accepted and/or dematerialized and pledged or realized at / through any of the designated warehouses.

6. The learned DRT, by a judgment and order dated January 25, 2024, allowed the O.A. upon holding that the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the petitioner are jointly and severally liable to pay the opposite party no. 1/ Bank a sum of Rs. 22,96,128 with future simple interest at 10.50% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization and it was further held that the Bank was entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the petitioner for realization of its dues.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated January 25, 2024 passed by the learned DRT, Hyderabad in the said O.A., petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short “DRAT”) at Kolkata which was registered as Appeal Diary No. 1131 of 2024. Since the said appeal was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed praying for condonation of delay of 85 days in filing the said appeal. The said application under of the Limitation Act was regis