9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. No. 321 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem against the defendants/petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. After the constitution of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai, the said suit has been transferred to the Tribunal where it was re-numbered as T.A. No. 1665 of 1997. By order dated 30-11-1999, the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an order declaring that the applicant-bank is entitled to a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs. 10,45,643.35 with future interest at 12 per cent per annum; simple interest from the date of plaint till date of realisation with costs. Against the said order, respon- dent Nos. 2 and 3 herein/defendants 1 and 3 filed I.A. No. 2135 of 2000 to condone delay in filing a petition to set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.L. Narayanan, the learned counsel for the first respondent-bank. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the merits of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal which is under challenge, in view of the objection of the learned counsel for the first respondent regarding the maintainability of the revisions, I shall consider the said question at the foremost. There is no dispute that the impugned common order has been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in applications filed by the defendants. Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 speaks about appeal to the Tribunal : "20. Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggriev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nan, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank, contended that the proper remedy for the petitioners is to file an appeal to the Tribunal and that the present revisions under article 227 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable. On the other hand, Mr. N. Damodaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by pointing out Rule 8 (2) of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 and also by referring the fact that there is no reference regarding court-fee for the orders passed in the interlocutory applications, contended that section 20 is not applicable and that the only remedy is by way of revision to this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. A reading of sub-section (1) of section 20 makes it c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Recovery Tribunal is to be paid while filing appeal against the orders passed in interlocutory application. In the light of the specific language used in sub-section (1) of section 20, I am of the view that the petitioner has effective statutory remedy by way of appeal to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Without availing such remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to avail of the constitutional remedy provided under article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it is relevant to refer a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, in Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan [2001] (3) C.T.C. 555. In that case, a suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of money from the principal debtor as well as the guarantors. The sui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum. 6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner to rely upon this decision either before the Tribunal or before the Appellate Tribunal to support his case. 6. In the light of what is stated above, particularly in the light of the language used in sub-section (1) of section 20, against an order of the Tribunal, the aggrieved party may prefer appeal to the Tribunal having jurisdiction. Since the impugned common order is an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the proper remedy for him is to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal as provided under the statute. When such remedy is available under the statute, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to move before this Court to avail the constitutional r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
