9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order passed by single Judge quashing order of Debts Recovery Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a bank, challenged a judgment and order passed by a single Judge quashing an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal had allowed the bank's application against the respondents for failing to file a reply. The respondents later filed a plea to set aside the ex-parte order, which was rejected. The single Judge allowed the respondents' challenge, leading to the current appeal. 2. The appeal raised concerns about the statutory appellate mechanism under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Despite this provision, the respondents bypassed the statutory route and sought relief through constitutional writ jurisdiction. The single Judge's decision to quash the Tribunal's order was based on this approach, which the appellant contended was not warranted. 3. The High Court noted that the statutory provision of Section 20 allows for an appeal against the Tribunal's order. It emphasized that when such a mechanism is available, parties must resort to appellate jurisdiction. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors., which highlighted the importance of refraining from entertaining writ petitions when alternative statutory remedies exist. 4. In light of the above analysis, the High Court quashed and set aside the single Judge's order, allowing the appeal with costs. The Court directed the respondents to pursue the appropriate alternative appellate remedy available for addressing their grievance, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory appellate process provided by the Act.
|
