Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
S.K. Gangele, Rohit Arya, JJ.
R.R. Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. and others - Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India and others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3437-2012
Decided On : 20-09-2013
Tribunal Jurisdiction - Imposition of Conditions - Sections 19, 22 of the Act of 1993, Rule 12 of the Rules of 1993 - The court considered the power of the Tribunal to impose conditions in setting aside ex parte proceedings. It discussed the relevant sections and rules, emphasizing that the Tribunal cannot impose stringent conditions amounting to finalization of the dispute, but can impose costs. The judgment highlighted the principles of natural justice and the need for the Tribunal to work within the framework of the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The issue revolved around the Tribunal's jurisdiction to impose conditions in setting aside ex parte proceedings due to delay in filing the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act of 1993 and the Rules of 1993, emphasizing that the Tribunal cannot impose stringent conditions but can impose costs. It noted that the Tribunal must work within the framework of the law and adhere to the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to impose rigorous and stringent conditions in setting aside ex parte orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Tribunal cannot impose conditions amounting to finalization of the dispute, but can impose costs. It emphasized the need for the Tribunal to work within the framework of the law and adhere to the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. The petitioners were permitted to participate in the proceedings subject to depositing costs.
JUDGMENT
1.Heard.
2. The petitioners have filed this petition against the orders dated 3-5-2012 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (DRAT) and dated 12-3-2012 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (DRT).
3. The petitioner No. 2 is the Director of the petitioner No. 1 -Company. Respondent No. 1-Bank filed an Original Application before the Tribunal for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,99,10,616/-. The Tribunal issued notices to the petitioners and other persons. The notices were not served on the petitioners and thereafter, the notices were published in the newspaper. Ex parte judgment was passed on 14-1-2009. An application was filed for setting aside exparte judgment. It was set aside vide order dated 7-3-2011 and Original Application was retorted to file.
4. The petitioners were directed to file written statement on 15-4-2011, however, the petitioners did not file the written statement within time and they filed the written statement on 18-11-2011. On the aforesaid ground, the DRT directed that the petitioners shall not be allowed to file the written statement unless they pay the principal amount borrowed from the Bank. The Tribunal allowed the petitioners to contest the claim subject to depositing the principal amount within one month. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was filed, that appeal has also been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal.
5. This Court considered in detail the power of the Tribunal to impose the conditions in the event of setting aside exparte proceedings in W.P. No. 1987/2013, Alok Saboo s/o Shri C.K. Saboo Vs. Business r/o Saboo Bhawan, Naya Bazar. In the present case, there was delay in filing the written statement and the Tribunal has imposed a condition that the petitioners have to deposit principal amount.
6. The issue involved in this petition is the same, which has been decided by this Court in Alok Saboo (supra), in which, this Court has held as under : --
"(5) The main question for consideration before the Court is that whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to impose rigorous and stringent condition in setting aside the ex parte order.
(6) Section 19 of the Act of 1993 prescribes procedure of Tribunal. Section 19 (4) of the Act is in regard to issuance of summons and Section 19 (5) of the Act is in regard to submitting written statement by the defendant. The aforesaid Sections are as under: --
'19 (4). On receipt of the application under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Tribunal shall issue summons requiring the defendant to show cause within thirty days of the service of summons as to why the relief prayed for should not be granted.
19 (5). The defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Tribunal may permit, present a written statement of his defence.’
(7) Section 22 of the Act of 1993 prescribes that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 further prescribes that the Tribunal has the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in respect of the matters. One of them is Section 22 (2) (f) of the Act dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte, another is Section 22 (2) (g) of the Act setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex parte. It means that the Tribunal has power while setting aside ex parte order or dismissal of any application or decide it ex parte pari materia with the powers as vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure.
(8) Rules have also been framed by the Central Government to regulate the procedure of Debts Recovery Tribunal, named as The Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1993') in exercise of the powers conferred by s
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
