2002 (2) TMI 1228 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of revisions under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 regarding the remedy of appeal.
3. Jurisdiction of High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in cases of orders passed by Tribunals.
4. Applicability of alternative remedies provided by the statute in debt recovery cases.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with the maintainability of revisions under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner, aggrieved by a common order of the Tribunal, filed revisions seeking relief. The Tribunal had directed the defendants to pay a portion of the decretal amount to contest the case on merits. The High Court considered the maintainability of the revisions, emphasizing the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Court held that the petitioner must avail the remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal as per the statute, dismissing the revisions under article 227.

2. The interpretation of Section 20 of the Act was crucial in determining the proper remedy for the aggrieved party. The Court highlighted the provisions of Section 20, emphasizing that any person aggrieved by an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal must prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted the limitation period for filing an appeal, the procedure to be followed, and the expeditious disposal of appeals within six months. The Court also referred to the fee payable for appeals as provided in the rules. It cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of following the statutory appeal process in debt recovery cases.

3. Regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in cases of orders passed by Tribunals, the Court referred to precedents to clarify the scope of judicial intervention. It highlighted that the Act provides a special procedure for debt recovery, and while there is no express bar on High Courts' jurisdiction, judicial prudence demands refraining from exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 when an effective alternative remedy is available under the statute. The Court emphasized the need to adhere to the statutory appeal process for debt recovery matters.

4. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to the alternative remedies provided by the statute in debt recovery cases. It emphasized that the fast-track appeal procedure under the Act should not be derailed by resorting to proceedings under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the revisions under article 227, directing the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy as provided under Section 20. It also granted a time extension for the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy, excluding the time taken in the revision process for limitation purposes.