Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. Murugesan and K.K. Sasidharan, JJ.
ICICI Bank Ltd. Rep. by Chief
Manager —Petitioner
versus
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai & Ors. —Respondents
WP No. 19707 of 2011
Decided on 11.10.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:A.L. Somayaji, Senior Counsel for Shivakumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3:T.V. Ramanujam, Senior Counsel for Prakash Goklaney, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Since power of impounding a passport in inherent in DRT conferred under Section 19(25) of RDDBFI Act, hence power to pass interim orders under Section 19(25) of Act is wide enough to cover power to pass an order directing surrender of passport.
Headnote:(i) Constitution of India, Article 21—Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Sections 19(12) and 19(25)—Passport Act, 1967—Surrender of passport by debtor to DRT—Direction for—Power of DRT—Both RDDBFI Act and Passport Act passed under List I of VIIth Schedule to Constitution—Inherent power of DRT not flows from general law viz. CPC but from separate statute viz. RDDBFI Act—Inherent power of DRT wider than Civil Court—Not excluded by provisions of Passport Act, from passing interim order to meet ends of justice—DRT and DRAT can direct debtor by means of interim order to surrender his passport to DRT—Passport Act, not expressly or impliedly excludes power of DRT or DRAT in passing interim orders—Such powers to be exercised sparingly with caution to meet ends of justice—Order of DRT, directing debtor to surrender his passport—Upheld. (Paras 24, 26 and 28)
(ii) Passport Act, 1967—Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993—Both Acts passed under List I of VIIth Schedule of Constitution—Passport Act, a special enactment governing not only for issuance of passport but also for interim suspension, variation, revocation and impounding of passport—RDDBFI Act enacted to recover dues of Banks and Financial Institutions. (Para 13)
Result: Appeal allowed.
D. Murugesan, J.— This Court is called upon to decide the question as to whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal would have power to direct the borrower or the guarantor to surrender the Passport to the Tribunal and to further restrain the borrower or the guarantor from leaving the country without the written permission of the Debts Recovery Tribunal/the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be.
2. The above issue arises under the following circumstances. The petitioner is M/s ICICI Bank Limited, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’). Ms Subhiksha Trading Service Limited availed credit facilities in the form of term loan for their retail trading business in the sale of grocery , fruits and vegetables, pharma, mobiles and fast moving consumer goods and also for expansion of their business in the States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. The said facilities were availed in the year 2005. The Third respondent by name R. Subramanian (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’), who is the Managing Director of the said Company, had also executed Personal Guarantee in favour of the Bank guaranteeing the due repayment of the facilities except the credit card facility. As the Company failed and committed default in repayment of the loan and the interest, the Bank had recalled the facilities and called upon the Company to pay the dues, the Company failed to pay the dues demanded in the notice, the Bank invoked the guarantee of the Respondent. Despite receipt of the said notice, the respondent also failed and neglected to make payments. In the circumstances, the Bank filed O.A. No. 96 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.221,97,76,635.78p as on 31st December, 2009, which Application stood transferred to the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal II and renumbered as O.A. No.190 of 2010. Along with the said O.A. among other Interlocutory Applications, the Bank also filed I.A. No.250 of 2010 under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 seeking for a direction to the said R. Subramanian, the respondent, to surrender his Passport and not to leave the country without the permission of the Tribunal. By order dated 30.9.2010, the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai allowed the said I.A., and directed the Respondent to deposit his Passport with the Registrar of the Tribunal within fifteen days from the date of the said order and further directed that the Respondent should not leave the country without obtaining the permission of the Tribunal.
3. This order was challenged by the Respondent before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by filing M.A. No.606 of 2010. By the impugned order dated 12.8.2011, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal has no authority under law to impound the Passport, as the Passport Authority empowered under the Passports Act, 1967 would alone have such power. This order is questioned in this Writ Petition.
4. For consideration of the issue, the following provisions under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RDDBFI Act’) and the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Rules’) as well as the Rules of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 are referable. They read as follows:
“Section 17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals— (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide Applications from the Banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such Banks and financial institutions.
(2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to hav
