9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal modifying order of Debts Recovery Tribunal - II in original application under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Analysis: 1. The revision petitioner challenged an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal modifying the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal - II in an original application filed by a bank under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The petitioner claimed no knowledge of the original application until April 2000 and alleged that no notice or summons were served on him by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, resulting in an ex parte order against him. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which was resisted by the bank, claiming mala fide intentions on the part of the petitioner and seeking to uphold the ex parte decree due to the petitioner's insolvency proceedings involvement. 2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II set aside the ex parte order on the condition that the petitioner and other respondents deposit Rs. 3 lakhs within five weeks. The petitioner, aggrieved by this condition, appealed to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which modified the condition to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within six weeks. The petitioner further challenged this modified order, arguing that it was illegal and based on a wrong address for notice, and that his absence was not deliberate but due to lack of service of notice. 3. The High Court examined the jurisdiction under Article 227, emphasizing that it does not act as an appellate court but reviews whether the tribunal had the authority and followed procedural norms. Referring to legal precedents, the court highlighted that interference under Article 227 is limited to cases of serious dereliction of duty or violation of fundamental legal principles. The court noted that the Appellate Tribunal's discretion in modifying the deposit condition was not arbitrary and did not warrant interference. 4. The court found that the notice issue had been considered by the lower tribunals, which were satisfied with the bank's attempts to serve notice. The court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision, declining to interfere under Article 227. Extending the time for depositing Rs. 1 lakh by eight weeks, the court dismissed the civil revision petition, with parties bearing their respective costs. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the Appellate Tribunal's decision and extending the time for depositing the required amount. The court emphasized limited interference under Article 227 and upheld the tribunal's discretion in setting conditions for setting aside an ex parte order.
|
