Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suman Bhattacharyya & Anr vs Indian Bank & Ors on 8 April, 2021
S/L 6
08.04.2021
GB
C.O. 923 of 2021
Suman Bhattacharyya & Anr.
Vs.
Indian Bank & Ors.
(Through Video Conference)
Mr. Joy Saha
Ms. Jayshree Saha,
Mr. Saket Cahudhury,
Mr. N. Mishra,
... for the Petitioners.
Mr. Om Narayan Rai.
... for the Opposite Party No.1.
Mr. D. Karmakar,
Mr. S. Saha.
... for the Opposite Party Nos.3 to 6.
This revisional application arises out of an order
dated March 26, 2021 passed by the learned Debts Recovery
Tribunal -III, Kolkata in S.A. No. 539 of 2018.
By the order impugned, the learned Tribunal
dismissed the S.A. and accordingly disposed of all the
interlocutory applications filed by the respective parties.
This revisional application challenges the procedure
adopted by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the S.A.
The attention of the Court is drawn to the order dated
February 19, 2021, by which the learned Tribunal fixed the
matter for hearing on February 26, 2021 and extended the
interim order till the next date of hearing. The matter was
not taken up for hearing as per the records on February 26,
2021, but the matter was next listed before the learned
Tribunal on March 17, 2021. The learned Tribunal fixed the
matter along with the interlocutory applications within the
first ten matters on April 6, 2021, April 7, 2021 ad April 8,
2021 between 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. as a 'Specially Fixed
Matter'. It appears that the matter was placed on March 26,
2021 in the list for judgment, when the parties were present
and the petitioners objected to the proceedings being
continued on that date. The learned Tribunal pronounced its
judgment thereby dismissing S.A. 539 of 2018 and disposed
of the connected applications.
This procedural irregularity which not only amounts
to violation of the principles of natural justice but also to an
attempt a part of the Tribunal to preclude the petitioners
from availing of the remedies under the law and effectively
contest the said proceedings. This conduct of the learned
Tribunal also amounts to procedural impropriety. Thus,
although the order impugned is a final order, which is an
appealable order, the revisional application is being
entertained as this Court under the general power of
superintendence has the jurisdiction to correct such
irregularity and prevent any miscarriage or travesty of
justice.
The facts as narrated hereinabove, clearly show that
the Tribunal did not proceed in accordance with law and has
caused grave injustice to the petitioners by pronouncing the
judgment on a day, not fixed by the Tribunal itself for
hearing. The Tribunal had fixed three consecutive dates for
hearing of the matter by an order dated March 17, 2021.
Instead, on a prior date, the judgment was pronounced when
admittedly no hearing was held.
In view of the fact that the application before the
learned Tribunal was dismissed without granting any
opportunity to the petitioners to argue their cases, the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of United
Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. reported
in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110 and in the matter
of Kaniyalal Lalchand Sachdev Vs. State of
Maharashta & Ors. reported in (2011) 2 Supreme
Court of India 782 will not be applicable. In this case,
existence of an alternative remedy by way of an appeal would
not be a bar as the learned Tribunal proceeded in a manner,
which is not only irregular and beyond all principles of
judicial discipline and decorum.
The records do not reveal that the order dated March
17, 2021 was either recalled or modified by the learned
Tribunal.
Under such circumstances, the order impugned does
not have any legs to stand. The order impugned is set aside
and quashed. The parties are relegated to the learned
Tribunal for hearing of S.A. 539 of 2018 along with all
pending interlocutory application. The learned court below
is directed to hear out the applications and the S.A.
preferably within two months from the date of
communication of this order.
It is made clear that the parties will not be allowed
any unnecessary adjournments. The learned Tribunal shall
proceed in accordance with law upon giving adequate
opportunity to the parties to place their case.
This Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of
the petitioners and the learned Tribunal shall decide the
matter independently and in accordance with law.
The revisional application is disposed of.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
