KERALA HIGH COURT
K.Vinod Chandran, J.
M/s. Bio Research Pharmaceuticals & Ors. —Petitioners
versus
State Bank of Travancore & Ors. —Respondents
O.P.(DRT) Nos.11 of 2015
Decided on 19.2.2016
(B) Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Section 29—Recovery of debt—Though recovery of public dues should be made expeditiously, it should be in accordance with procedure prescribed by law—It should not frustrate a constitutional right, as well as human right of a person to hold property—In event of a fundamental procedural error occurred in a sale, same can be set aside. (Para 26)
Result: Original Petitions allowed.
K. Vinod Chandran, J.—Both the Original Petitions arise on similar circumstances, from two separate orders, both dated 21.01.2015; in appeals disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam [Kerala and Lakshadweep] [for brevity “DRT”], produced as Exhibit P5 in the respective Original Petitions; in Appeal Nos.4 of 2013 and 3 of 2013. The 1st petitioners in both the Original Petitions, borrowers from the very same Bank, are two different firms; represented by a husband and wife, who are 2nd and 3rd petitioners in both the Original Petitions and their son, the 4th respondent in O.P.(DRT) No.12 of 2015; being the partners of the two firms. The purchaser also is the very same individual, who is impleaded as the 2nd respondent in both the Original Petitions.
2. The sale challenged before the DRT arises from DRC Nos.395/SBT and 517/SBT, of three properties, all situated in Kunnamkulam Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrissur District. Three different properties were sold, one under DRC 395/SBT and the other two under DRC 517/SBT. But for the separate proceedings the proclamation of sale and the other proceedings leading to the sale were on identical dates and the facts are similar. The orders of the DRT produced in the respective Original Petitions, proceed on identical lines, detailing the entire facts, which indicate the identical circumstances under which the sale was proceeded with, and hence one of the said Original Petitions can be referred to for convenience. O.P.(DRT) No.11 of 2015, hence, is taken as the lead case, from which the facts and documents are referred to.
3. The preliminary issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank and the learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser is as to the maintainability of the Original Petition for reason of there being an appellate remedy provided under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [for brevity “RDDB Act”]. The respondents would rely on Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, (2001) 6 SCC 569: [2001] 6 Supreme 81. and United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon, (2010) 8 SCC 110. to urge this Court to relegate the petitioners to the appellate remedy.
4. O.C. Krishnan (supra) was a case in which a suit filed by the creditor Bank was transferred to the DRT and the DRT decreed the same. On the Recovery Officer proceeding to sell the hyothecated plant and machinery, the guarantors, whose property was mortgaged, approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court of Calcutta, finding that the properties are situated in Chennai, held the DRT to have no territorial jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the High Court ought not to have exercised the jurisdiction under Article 227 in view of the alternate remedy contained in the Act. Satyawati Tandon (supra) was a case in which the mortgagor/guarantor filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against a notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [for brevity “SARFAESI Act”]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the High Court has overlooked the settled law that a petition under Article 226 would not be entertained if an alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
5. On a reading of the order cited first and the judgment second cited, no departure is discernible from the settled law as laid down by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 499: [2005] 5 Supreme 161. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had recognized and succinctly stated the instances where despite the alternate remedy, the High Court could invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
“22. ....... There are two well-recognised exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra
Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon
State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.
M.V.Janardhan Reddy v. Vijaya Bank
Mathew Varghese v. M.Amritha Kumar
Sadashiv Prasad Singh v. Harendar Singh and Others
Bhat v. Anugraha Charitable Trust
SupremeToday
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.