AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The civil revision petitioner has filed this revision petition praying for an issuance of order, directing the Debt Recovery
Tribunal-1, Chennai to dispose of O.A. No. 384 of 2004 and connected I.A. Nos. 192 and 194 of 2008 within a time frame determined by this
Court.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Chennai should have passed orders in O.A. No. 384 of 2004
when the respondents herein were set exparte as early as on 2.9.2005 and further that the Tribunal ought to have disposed of O.A.No.384 of
2004 and the connected I.A. Nos. 192 and 194 of 2008 when the first respondent by its letter dated 15.11.2005 has asked the revision
petitioner/bank to take charge of the assets and to sell the same and appropriate the sale proceeds towards its dues and more over the Tribunal
should have granted the interim relief sought for by the revision petitioner/bank and when the public funds has remain locked up and may not be
available for circulation to needy third parties, the Tribunal should have considered the loss and hardship suffered by the revision petitioner/bank
and it appears that the respondents have not filed reply and counter and therefore prays for allowing the revision petition by this Court in issuing a
suitable direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1,to dispose of O.A. No. 384 of 2004 and other connected Interlocutory applications within a
specific date in the interest of justice.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/bank brings it to the notice of this Court that as per Section 19(24) of the Recovery of Debts
Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)'' when an application made to the Tribunal under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section
(2) shall be dealt with by its as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the application finally within one hundred
and eighty days from the date of receipt of the application'' and that nearly four years have lapsed from the date of filing of the original application
in the year 2004 and nothing tangible has been moved in this matter and therefore prays for allowing this revision petition to prevent aberration of
justice.
It cannot be gain said that the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Act 1993 refers to the
banks and financial institutions at present experience considerable difficulties in recovering loans and enforcement of securities charged with them
and that the existing procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and financial institutions has blocked a significant portion of their funds in
unproductive assets, the value of which deteriorates with the passage of time and further the locking up of such huge amount of public money in
litigation prevents proper utilisation and re-cycling of the funds for the development of the country etc., and therefore the Bill seeks to provide for
the establishment of Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.
It is pertinent to point out that Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 (51 of 1993) runs as
follows:
Every appeal under Sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made, or deemed
to have been made, by the Tribunal is received by him and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed;
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty five days if it is satisfied that there was
sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.
Undoubtedly, the right of an appeal is a creation of a statute. Even the Appellate Tribunal can exercise the power and authority of entertaining an
appeal against any order made or deemed to have been made by the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the Recovery of Debts Due to banks and
financial institutions Act 1993 and Rules enunciated thereunder provide for an inbuilt mechanisms and the same cannot be derailed in any manner
by any party, notwithstanding the fact that the Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal is guided by the principles of natural justice and can regulate its own
procedure to secure the ends of justice and when the procedure adopted is not contrary to the provisions of the Act or rules and is not in violation
of Principles of natural justice, unreasonableness or arbitrariness , the High Court will not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in
the considered opinion of this Court.
As far as the present case is concerned, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/bank has brought to the notice of this Court that O.A.
No. 384 of 2004 and two applications viz., I.A. Nos. 192 and 194 of 2008 are pending for some time with the Tribunal defeating the purpose for
which the Tribunal has come into existence.
Inasmuch as O.A. No. 384 of 2004 and I.A. Nos. 192 of 2008 and 194 of 2008 filed by the revision petitioner/bank is pending as on date, on
the basis of equity fair play and as a matter of prudent course, this Court directs the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Chennai to dispose of O.A. No.
384 of 2004 and two applications viz., I.A. Nos. 192 of 2008 and 194 of 2008 in accordance with law within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order dispassionately, uninfluenced with any of the observation made by this Court in this revision.
The civil revision petition is disposed off in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.