Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Chikkam Vijay Mohan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of respondent's appointment and superannuation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. objection to cat's jurisdiction over the oa (Para 5) |
| 3. reasons for granting interim relief by cat (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments on jurisdiction of cat vs high court (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. final decision on jurisdiction and order (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Amit Bansal, J. The petition impugns the order dated 18th March, 2020 of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.100/538/2020 preferred by the respondent. Vide the said order, interim relief has been granted to the respondent and the respondent has been directed to be continued in service as Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Nagpur. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who were the respondents before CAT.
2. The respondent herein was a member of the Judicial Service of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Vide notification dated 24th October, 2016 under Section 4 (1) read with Section 6 of the RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT , 1993 (DRT Act), the respondent was appointed as Presiding Officer of DRT, Nagpur. The respondent, vide order
DRT cannot be said to be holding a civil post under the Union and therefore, CAT did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A..
The jurisdiction for challenging appellate tribunal orders lies in the High Court corresponding to the original tribunal's location, affirming the principle that appellate orders merge with original ....
Courts can issue directions for urgent relief when the functioning of tribunals is delayed.
The superior court can intervene in cases of manifest injustice but must defer to statutory appellate processes if adequately pursued.
The court mandated a preliminary scrutiny of allegations against the Presiding Officer of DRT, emphasizing accountability and the need for judicial decorum.
Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, where DRT has exceeded in exercising its jurisdiction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
