The authority of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to revive proceedings in accordance with the Ministry of Finance Gazette Notification dated 06.09.2018 and the availability of statutory alternative remedy to challenge the DRT's orders.

ORDER

1. The instant petition challenges order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and judgment dated 27.04.2021 passed in O.A. No.989/2018.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present petitioners had taken a term loan for business purposes from the respondent-bank in the year 2013. The petitioners paid regular EMIs but due to certain financial difficulties and on account of loss in business, the account of the petitioners become NPA.

3. Counsel submitted that Ministry of Finance issued a Gazette Notification dated 06.09.2018 whereby limit of recovery proceedings under The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act of 1993') before the DRT was increased from Rs.10 lacs to Rs.20 lacs and matters above Rs.20 lacs could be filed before the DRT.

4. Counsel submitted that the Notification dated 06.09.2018 was put to challenge before the Division Bench of this Court and there was an interim order passed on 11.11.2018.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent-bank taking advantage of the stay granted by this Court, filed an original application under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 before the DRT, Jaipur on 17.11.2018 and said O.A. was accepted by the DRT, subject to the final outcome of the pending petition.

6. Counsel submitted that writ petition pending before this Court was finally decided vide judgment dated 01.07.2019.

7. Counsel submitted that the application filed by the respondent-bank was returned by the DRT, Jaipur on 23.07.2019 and as such the application filed by the respondent-bank became final and same was no more pending.

8. Counsel submitted that the DRT, Jaipur vide order dated 16.10.2019 passed an order said to be in compliance of Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services issued a letter dated 01.08.2019 and the Tribunal found that cases which were filed before the DRT, Jaipur during stay period that is 26.09.2018 to 30.06.2019 were to continue in DRT, Jaipur till its conclusion.

9. Counsel submitted that the DRT, Jaipur on 22.10.2019 had taken up the O.A. of the respondent-bank for admission and issued notices to the petitioners.

10. Counsel submitted that since the original application of the respondent-bank was already permitted to be withdrawn and proceedings were no more pending, as such DRT, Jaipur proceeded exparte against the petitioners and passed the order on 27.04.2021 and the same is under challenge before this Court.

11. Counsel submitted that the clarification which was issued by the Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services on 01.08.2019 was only applicable in respect of those proceedings where O.A. were filed during stay period and they were to continue before DRT, till their conclusion and since the proceedings against the petitioners were already concluded, as such, the Tribunal has committed grave error in passing the impugned order as well as the final order.

12. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is no inherent power with the DRT to recall its order or to treat any application for revival of proceedings and then to decide on merits.

13. Counsel submitted that assuming, if power is conferred in DRT, as per the provision contained in Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the same power does not authorize Debt Recovery Tribunal to pass order of the nature which has been passed in the present case.

14. Counsel in support of his submissions places reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Dharminder Bhohi and Ors., reported in JT 2013 (13) SC 69.

15. Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has raised preliminary objection and submitted that present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in view of statutory appeal provided under Section 20 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993 (for short 'the DRT Ac