9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst respondent, Canara Bank filed O.A. No. 1456 of 2001 under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( the Act ) against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein. In the said original application, the first respondent-bank prayed for the following reliefs : "( i )To direct the defendants 1 to 3 to pay the applicant jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 14,84,591.00 being the amount due under agricultural term loan account together with further interest at the rate of 19.34 per cent per annum compounded half-yearly from the date of application till realisation, together with further interest as stated above from the date of application till the date of realisation in full with compounded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application came to be posted on 21-12-1999 for filing proof affidavit of the applicant, which affidavit was filed by the applicant therein on 21-12-1999. Thereafter final order was passed directing payment. 4. According to the revision petitioner, he has neither received any notice with respect to the filing of the original application nor any summons have been served on him by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Being kept in dark, the revision petitioner did not or could not have appeared in the said original application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The plaintiff- bank was aware of the residential address of the revision petitioner, yet it had not chosen to serve the revision petitioner. While pointing out that the non-appearance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et aside, irreparable loss will be caused to the plaintiff, namely, the first respondent-bank. 6. In the said O.A. No. 1456 of 2001, the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 31-8-1998, while recording that affidavit of service is filed, summons were returned against D-1 and D-2 as no such person present in the address, publication also was effected, D-1 and D-2 called absent, set ex parte and directed the matter to be posted for orders on 21-12-1999. Proof affidavit was filed and orders were passed on 4-5-2000. 7. In I.A. Nos. 3363 of 1999 and 1501 of 2001, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, while holding that no notice has been served on the revision petitioner herein, with a view to afford one more opportunity to be given to the other side, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if so, whether the impugned order is vitiated by procedural irregularity. In other words, the Court is concerned not with the decision, but with the decision-making process. It is equally well- settled that the High Court shall not in exercise of its powers under article 227 assume appellate powers to correct every mistake of law. If the order has been passed without jurisdiction, then this Court would be justified in interfering with the order passed by the Banking Recovery Appellate Tribunal under article 227. 11. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P.) Ltd. [2001] (8) SCC 97, the Apex Court, while examining the scope and ambit of article 227, held thus : "The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to administrative superintendence only but such power includes within its sweep the power of judicial review. The power and duty of the High Court under article 227 is essentially to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals, inferior to High Court, have done what they were required to do. Law is well-settled by various decisions of this Court that the High Court can interfere under article 227 of the Constitution in cases of erroneous assumption or acting beyond its jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion, a patent error in procedure, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been held by the Apex Court in the above pronouncements. 15. In the present case, this Court finds that the order of the appe- llate Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with under article 227. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada [2000] 3 SCC 54, and contended that while setting aside the ex parte order against the defendants, the expression sufficient cause for non-appearance cannot be stretched to cover the circumstances occurring prior to the date of non-appearance and when there is sufficient cause for non-appearance, the defendants cannot be penalised by imposing a condition. 16. In this case, though the Debt Recovery Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
