9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an interim order passed by the Tribunal is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal. 2. Whether Regulations 31 and 32 of the Regulations framed by the Tribunal are invalid and deserve to be declared so. 3. Whether the impugned order deserves to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Appealability of Interim Orders: The primary issue was whether an interim order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is appealable before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The court examined Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which allows appeals against "an order" made by the Tribunal. The court also considered various high court judgments which held that "any order" or "an order" includes every order affecting the rights or liabilities of parties, including interlocutory orders. The court concluded that an appeal lies against any order that substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party, not just final orders. 2. Validity of Regulations 31 and 32: The petitioners challenged the validity of Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998, arguing they curtailed the right to cross-examine witnesses. Regulation 31 mandates that evidence shall be on affidavits, and Regulation 32 allows the Tribunal to order the attendance of a deponent for cross-examination upon application. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association, which upheld similar provisions, emphasizing that the Tribunal's procedures are designed to expedite recovery processes while ensuring principles of natural justice. The court reaffirmed the validity of these regulations, holding that they do not transgress the limits stipulated under Section 22 of the Act or Rule 12(6) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1993. 3. Interference under Articles 226 and 227: The court addressed whether it should interfere with the impugned orders under its writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal. The court acknowledged that while the High Court's powers under Articles 226 and 227 are not ousted by the Act, it should exercise discretion and typically refrain from intervening when an adequate alternative remedy exists. The court cited several Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that writ jurisdiction should be sparingly used, particularly when the alternative remedy is adequate and effective. The court concluded that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 should not be exercised in this case, given the availability of an appellate remedy. Conclusion: The court summarized its conclusions as follows: - An appeal lies against any order that substantially affects the rights or liabilities of a party. - Regulations 31 and 32 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulation of Practice, 1998, are intra vires. - The writ court can exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in exceptional circumstances, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. - A prayer for cross-examination should be entertained by the Tribunal if circumstances warrant, as per Regulation 32. - The impugned orders do not warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. - Petitioners are allowed to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within six weeks, and the Tribunal should not dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation. - Petitioners can argue before the Tribunal that the impugned order substantially affects their rights or liabilities. - Any contrary decisions by the court are overruled. The writ petitions were disposed of without any order as to costs.
|
