TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs use of statutory appeal over revision petition under Article 227, emphasizing proper legal recourse</h1> The Court dismissed the revision petition under Article 227, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate ... - Issues:1. Maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.2. Dismissal of three applications by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.3. Interpretation of Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.4. Availability of statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.5. Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Issue 1: Maintainability of the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaThe petitioner filed a revision petition under Article 227 seeking to set aside the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The respondent-Bank raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition, arguing that an equally efficacious remedy is available under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Act were examined to determine the jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the Act provides for a remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by the Tribunal, and the remedy under Article 227 is not intended to supersede the statutory appeal process. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.Issue 2: Dismissal of three applications by the Debts Recovery TribunalThe petitioner had filed three applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, seeking various reliefs related to the case. These applications included requests for summoning bank officials, production of account opening documents, and examination of documents by a Handwriting Expert. However, the Tribunal dismissed all three applications on 16th June 1997. This dismissal led to the filing of the revision petition under Article 227 challenging the Tribunal's decision regarding these applications.Issue 3: Interpretation of Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993The Court analyzed Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to understand the jurisdiction, powers, and procedures outlined in the Act. These sections delineate the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the bar on other authorities to exercise jurisdiction, the application process before the Tribunal, the right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, and the deposit requirement for filing an appeal. The Court emphasized that the Act provides a comprehensive framework for debt recovery matters, including avenues for appeal and deposit requirements for appeals.Issue 4: Availability of statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate TribunalThe Court clarified that the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is the appropriate course of action for challenging orders of the Tribunal under the Act. The petitioner was advised to pursue the appeal process provided for in the Act rather than seeking recourse through a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory appeal mechanism for seeking relief in matters governed by the Act.Issue 5: Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil ProcedureThe petitioner's counsel argued that the Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked to interfere with the Tribunal's order. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, as provided in Section 20 of the Act, should be pursued instead of seeking revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the statutory appeal process is the appropriate route for obtaining relief in matters falling under the Act.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for challenging orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant provisions of the Act and the limitations of seeking revision under Article 227 or Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
