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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more