2005 (9) TMI 630 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to High Court order allowing writ petition due to violation of natural justice principles by DRT; Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution; Appeal process u/s 20 of the Act against DRT decree.

Issue 1: Challenge to High Court Order

The appellant challenged the High Court order which allowed the writ petition due to the violation of natural justice principles by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in not permitting cross-examination of a witness whose evidence on affidavit was entertained. The High Court held that the violation of natural justice principles justified its intervention u/s 226 and 227 of the Constitution to rectify the injustice caused to the petitioner. The DRT's rejection of the application for cross-examination was not appealed against, and the High Court's decision was based on this violation.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of High Court

The Supreme Court questioned the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction u/s 226 and 227 of the Constitution to set aside the DRT's decree in a collateral proceeding. The Court emphasized that the respondent should have availed the remedy provided u/s 20 of the Act and appealed before the Appellate Tribunal to challenge the decree. The Court held that the respondent bypassed the appeal process by directly approaching the High Court through a writ petition, which was unjustified. The High Court's order was deemed to be without merit and was set aside by the Supreme Court.

Issue 3: Appeal Process u/s 20 of the Act

The respondent failed to prefer an appeal u/s 20 of the Act against the DRT's decree, which was passed on 09.04.2003. The Supreme Court highlighted that the respondent should have utilized the appeal process to raise grievances and challenge the decree before the Appellate Tribunal. By not following the prescribed appeal procedure, the respondent's approach of directly seeking relief from the High Court through a writ petition was considered inappropriate. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory appeal process provided u/s 20 of the Act for challenging DRT decrees.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed appeal process u/s 20 of the Act for challenging DRT decrees. The Court set aside the High Court's order, stating that the respondent should have availed the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal instead of directly approaching the High Court through a writ petition.