Tribunal's residuary power may protect a non-party claimant challenging a disputed mortgage and recovery steps.

A person not impleaded before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, but claiming title to property treated as validly mortgaged, may invoke the Tribunal's residuary power under Section 19(25) because the Act's remedies must be real and effective. Review under Rule 5A is confined to parties, and appeal under Section 20 or proceedings under Section 30 may not enable a stranger to challenge a declaration made without hearing him or to go behind the recovery certificate. The Tribunal can therefore examine, on merits and after hearing all parties, whether the alleged mortgage is sham or bogus and whether its process is being abused. The application was held maintainable and recovery steps were stayed pending its disposal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person who was not a party to proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, but whose property was declared to be validly mortgaged in favour of a financial institution, could move the Tribunal under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and whether the remedies under Sections 20, 29 and 30, or Rule 5A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, were effective in such a case.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 excludes ordinary civil court jurisdiction, but the remedies created by the Act must be real and effective. Rule 5A(1) confines review to a party to the proceedings, while Section 20 is wide enough to permit an appeal by an aggrieved person, yet an appeal on the existing record would not enable a stranger to the original proceedings to establish title or challenge a declaration made without hearing him. Section 30 is equally ineffective where the Recovery Officer cannot go behind the certificate or revisit the Tribunal's declaration. The Tribunal's residuary power under Section 19(25) to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice is wide enough to entertain a claim by a person asserting title to the property, especially where prima facie the property is said to be encumbered by a sham or bogus mortgage. The application filed by such person is therefore capable of being examined on merits by the Tribunal after hearing all parties.

Conclusion: The application under Section 19(25) was maintainable, and the petitioners were entitled to have their grievance considered by the Tribunal; the impugned recovery steps were stayed pending disposal of that application.

---