Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
DIPAK MISRA, S. P. KHARE, A. K. SRIVASTAVA
KOWA SPINNING LTD - Appellant
Versus
DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - Respondents
W. P. 5809 Of 2001
Decided On : 02/28/2003
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - INTERIM ORDER - APPEAL - VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS 31 AND 32 OF THE REGULATIONS FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL - WRIT JURISDICTION - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are defendants in proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), filed writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the DRT on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal had already pronounced a verdict that against an interlocutory order passed under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 (the Act), no appeal lies. The learned single Judge felt that a complex situation had surfaced inasmuch as this court in the case of M/s. Earnest Health Care Limited and others v. Debts Recovery Tribunal and others had expressed the view that any order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is appealable. In that background, the learned single Judge in paragraph 5 of the order dated 31-1 -2002 recommended for hearing of the matter by a larger Bench as provided under Rule 9 (1)occurring in Chapter-I of the M. P. High Court rules and Orders. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Division Bench and the division Bench considering the circumstances in entirety felt that the question arising for consideration required to be considered and determined by a Full Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that an appeal against an order which substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party lies to the Appellate Tribunal. Regulations 31 and 32 of the Regulations framed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur are intra vires. Despite the statutory remedy provided for preferring an appeal in exceptional circumstances the writ Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and such exercise of power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. A prayer for cross-examination if made in accordance with Regulation 32 of the regulations, the Debts Recovery Tribunal may entertain the same if the circumstances so warrant.
Issues: 1. Whether interim order passed by the tribunal is appealable before the Appellate tribunal? 2. Whether Regulations 31 and 32 of the regulations framed by the Tribunal are invalid and deserve to be so declared? 3. Whether the impugned order deserves to be interferred with in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the expression "an order" and "any order" in Sections 17 and 20 of the Act are not repugnant to each other. In fact, they point out to a complete harmonious whole leading to a specific, precise, appropriate destination i. e. . The tenability of appeal from an order or any order. The distinction which is sought to be drawn by Mr. Shrivastava on the basis of the use of the word, in our considered opinion, is absolutely fallacious. The High Court of Delhi in the case of M. C. Mittal and others (1996 (2) Bank CLR 86) (supra) accepted the interpretation that any order would mean interlocutory orders which substantially affect the rights of the parties. The Court presided by the learned chief Justice M. Jagannatha Rao (as His lordship then was) has also referred to the term "an order" and held that the same would convey that an appeal lies against the interim order which substantially affects the rights of the parties and those words are not confined to an order which finally disposes an application before the Tribunal. We are in respectful agreement with the meaning given to the terms "an order" and "any order"in the said judgment.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of without any order as to costs.
( 1 ) IN course of adjudication of proceedings in a Court of Law sometimes vexed questions and complex situations do emerge which demand imperative penetration and intensive discernment to clear the maze and pave a luminous path through the labyrinthine so that the litigants precisely know their exact podium and become able to ventilate their grievances as permissible in law before the right forum without remaining in a state of uncertainty and indefiniteness. Certitude ushers in the quintessential virtues of law in an organized society and the absence of the same creates a shambolic situation which is not only unwarrantable but also law is at loath and averse to countenance the same. The cases at hand fresco a picture which not only creates a stir and an unusual ado to judicial discipline but also provokes and in a way accelerates the institutional syllogistic rethinking to have a deeper and greater probe into the arena of controversy. The spinal issue spiralled to this Court when the writ petitions were instituted assailing the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') on the foundation that Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') had already pronounced a verdict that against an interlocutory order passed under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 (for brevity'the Act'), no appeal lies. The learned single Judge felt that a complex situation had surfaced inasmuch as this court in the case of M/s. Earnest Health Care Limited and others v. Debts Recovery Tribunal and others (W. P. No. 4955/2000) placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of M/s. Kavita pigments and Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank AIR 2000 Patna 43, M/s. Shoes East Ltd. . v. Allahabad Bank, AIR 1997 Delhi 325 and Bank of India v. Baroda cables, 1999 ISJ (Banking) 309 had expressed the view that any order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is appealable. In that background, the learned single Judge in paragraph 5 of the order dated 31-1 -2002 recommended for hearing of the matter by a larger Bench as provided under Rule 9 (1)occurring in Chapter-I of the M. P. High Court rules and Orders. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Division Bench and the division Bench considering the circumstances in entirety felt that the question arising for consideration required to be considered and determined by a Full Bench. That is how this batch of writ petitions has come before us.
( 2 ) BEFORE we embark upon the legal issues that have been urged with vehemence, emphasis and eloquence by Shri Kishore shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, we think it apposite to uncurtain the facts in Writ Petition No. 5809/2001. We may hasten to state that in course of our deliberation, we will briefly advert to the facts in other cases as we are required to finally dispose of the cases, reference having been made under Rule (9) (1) of the M. P. High Court Rules and orders. The factual score as depicted in the writ petition is that the respondent No. 2, State Bank of Indore, instituted a proceeding for recovery against the petitioners and the respondents No. 3. After filing of the original application, the debts Recovery Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') instead of issuing notices to the respondents therein for filing of reply on merits received evidence on behalf of the Bank and only after such receipt the Tribunal directed issuance of notices to the defendants. The petitioners appeared on the date of appearance i. e. 20-11-2000 and filed their reply. In their written statement /reply, the petitioners did not admit the claim put forth by the Bank and raised serious disputes with regard to the facts alleged in the petition filed by the Bank. As the Tribunal had received evidence on affidavits, the petitioners filed an application under proviso to Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 12 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993 (in short 'the rul
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
