TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal had jurisdiction under the 1993 Act and the Procedure Rules to grant ex parte ad interim injunctions and ancillary reliefs before hearing the opposite party; (ii) Whether the impugned orders, passed in stereotyped terms without adequate reasons and without proper notice, were sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal had jurisdiction under the 1993 Act and the Procedure Rules to grant ex parte ad interim injunctions and ancillary reliefs before hearing the opposite party?
Analysis: The scheme of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was read as distinguishing between final orders on the main application and interim orders of a limited kind. Section 19(6) was treated as authorising only interim injunction or stay in the specified field, while the prescribed form under Rule 4 and the procedural structure under Rule 10 did not disclose any express provision for ad interim ex parte relief of the breadth granted by the Tribunal. Section 22, which incorporates natural justice, was also treated as inconsistent with passing such wide-ranging ex parte orders behind the back of the affected party. On this construction, the Tribunal was not treated as possessing inherent or implied power to grant such reliefs.
Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant the impugned ad interim ex parte orders of the kind challenged.
Issue (ii): Whether the impugned orders, passed in stereotyped terms without adequate reasons and without proper notice, were sustainable?
Analysis: The orders were found to be mechanical, repetitive and unsupported by case-specific reasoning. They were passed on generalized phrases such as prima facie case and balance of convenience without showing application of mind to the pleadings or special facts. In the absence of notice and hearing, and given the civil consequences flowing from restraints on assets and business operations, the orders were treated as offending the principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the prejudice caused by denial of notice was inherent and did not require separate proof in a no-notice situation.
Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable for breach of natural justice, non-application of mind and absence of reasons.
Final Conclusion: The revisional applications succeeded and the impugned orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory conferral of power, a statutory tribunal cannot grant wide ex parte ad interim reliefs beyond the limited interim authority contemplated by the Act, and orders affecting civil rights must be supported by notice, hearing and reasons.
TaxTMI 
