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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether a civil revision lies against orders passed by the Tribunal in view of the appellate remedy under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Issue (i): Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The Tribunal was treated as a court subordinate to the High Court in view of the statutory scheme and the reliance placed on authorities recognising that position. However, the Court noted that the existence of subordination did not by itself attract revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code where the special statute had created its own supervisory and appellate framework.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was treated as subordinate to the High Court, but that did not make Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable.
Issue (ii): Whether a civil revision lies against orders passed by the Tribunal in view of the appellate remedy under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Analysis: Section 20 was read broadly to mean that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal under the Act may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, except an order made with the consent of parties. The Court held that orders passed under the Act, including the impugned orders, were appealable and that the special appellate remedy excluded recourse to civil revision. The Court also noted that the Act provided supervisory control through Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, not through Section 115 of the Code.
Conclusion: Civil revisions were not maintainable because the orders were appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Final Conclusion: The special statutory appeal mechanism under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 displaced revisional intervention under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides an appellate remedy against orders of a tribunal, civil revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is barred even if the tribunal is otherwise regarded as subordinate to the High Court.
TaxTMI 
