2003 (3) TMI 606 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Maintainability of civil revisions challenging orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
3. Applicability of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of orders passed under the Act.

Issue 1: Maintainability of civil revisions challenging orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal

The High Court considered two civil revisions challenging orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners contested the maintainability of the revisions, arguing that an appellate forum existed under section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, making the civil revisions under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure not maintainable. The petitioners relied on precedents to establish that the Tribunals under the Act were subordinate to the High Court. The Court acknowledged this contention in favor of the petitioners. However, it clarified that the power of superintendence over the Tribunals lay with the High Courts under the writ jurisdiction of the Constitution of India and not under section 115 of the Code.

Issue 2: Interpretation of provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993

The Court analyzed the provisions of the Act, particularly section 20, which outlined the appeal process to the Appellate Tribunal. It highlighted that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal under the Act could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, except for orders made with the consent of the parties. The Court cited various cases to support the view that orders passed by the Tribunal were appealable under section 20 of the Act. It referenced decisions from different High Courts and the Supreme Court, emphasizing that when an order was appealable under the Act, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Ultimately, the Court concluded that civil revisions under section 115 of the Code were not maintainable in such cases.

Issue 3: Applicability of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of orders passed under the Act

The petitioners argued that section 20 of the Act only applied to orders passed under specific sections and not under sections 22 or 25. The Court examined the statutory provision in section 20 and clarified that all orders passed by the Tribunal in accordance with the Act were appealable, except those made with the consent of the parties. It referenced case law to support this interpretation and highlighted that previous decisions had upheld the appealability of orders under the Act. The Court dismissed both civil revisions, emphasizing that the proper recourse for challenging orders passed by the Tribunal was through the appellate process outlined in the Act, rather than through civil revisions under section 115 of the Code.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the interpretation of legal provisions, the hierarchy of judicial forums, and the appropriate avenues for challenging orders under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993.