Skip to main content

DRT cannot impose conditionalities while restoring an application

Cause Title : M/s. Ganpat Pannalal Vs. State Bank of India, Writ Petition No. 18238 Of 2022, Madhya Pradesh High Court At Jabalpur

Date of Judgment/Order : 15th Of September, 2022

Corum : Justice Sujoy Paul

Citied: 

  1. Alok Saboo and others v. State Bank of India and others 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10788
  2. R.R. Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 7420
  3. Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others (1998) 8 SCC 1
  4. (2003) 2 SCC 107, Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Others
  5. Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another (1981) 2 SCC 788
  6. Ram Kumar Gupta and another v. Har Prasad and another (2010) 1 SCC 391
  7. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and another v. Union of India and another (2004) 4 SCC 311
  8. Alok Saboo and others v. State Bank of India and others 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10788
  9. (2012) 10 SCC 1 (Natural Resources Allocation, in Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012)
  10. DTC Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress 1991 supp (1) SCC 600
  11. M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 49
  12. State of U.P. v. Jageshwar (1983) 2 SCC 305
  13. Douglas, J. in United State v. Wunderlich

Background

A securitization application (SA) filed by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) was dismissed for want of prosecution. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed application seeking restoration ofthe said securitization application. The learned Tribunal directed that the SA will be restored subject to fulfilling certain conditions. The petitioner approached the High Court against the impugned order arguing that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to restore the securitization application (SA) with reasonable cost but could not have imposed the unreasonable conditions, which have no nexus with imposition of cost.

Judgment

The High Court observed that Alok Saboo (supra) & R.R. Flour Mills (supra), it has been held that the Court's power to impose condition for entertaining an application must be provided for under the statute itself.

In our considered opinion, under Section 22(1)(g) of the Act of 1993 the Tribunal was competent to restore the Securitization Application by imposition of reasonable cost. This power of restoration of SA as per Section 22(2)(g) of Act of 2003 cannot be confused with the power flowing from Section 19(25) of the same Act. It is noteworthy that Section 19 of the Act deals with 'application' to the Tribunal. Section.

Thus, when an 'application' is pending in order to secure the ends of justice in that proceeding relating to adjudication of said 'application', appropriate orders may be passed in the interest of justice by taking
assistance of Section 19(25) of the Act of 1993. For example, if in a pending SA, ad-interim relief is prayed for, the Tribunal can very well impose justifiable conditions while granting such interim relief. Such an order will be in-consonance with the scheme and object of Section 19(25) of the Act as well as the judgment of Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals (supra).

However, in the instant case, the restoration application filed under Section 22(2)(g) cannot be treated to be an 'application' filed under Section 19 of the said Act. Section 22(2)(g) does not provide any power to impose impugned conditions. The impugned order shows that the Tribunal has not directed restoration on payment of cost. Indeed, the Tribunal has put certain conditions. Such conditions, could not have been imposed in exercise of power under Section 22(2)(g) of the said Act of 2003. At the time of ordering restoration, the Tribunal was not required to act as a recovery agent of the Bank.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more