Rajasthan High Court
M/S Hotel The Royal Plaza vs Bank Of India on 3 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9341/2021
1. M/s Hotel THE ROYAL PLAZA, through its sole proprietor
Manjeet Kaur, having its office at 26, Hatwara Road, Near
Kiran Nursingh Road, Hasanpura, Sodala, Jaipur.
2. Manjeet Kaur Wife of Shri Uttam Singh, Resident of 26,
Hatwara Road, Near Kiran Nursingh Road, Hasanpura,
Sodala, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
Bank of India, Corporate Office at Star House, Bandra Kurla
Complex, Mumbai, Branch Office at 202, Narsingh Tower,
Opposite Sanjeevani Hospital, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mitul Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
03/03/2022
The instant petition challenges order dated 22.10.2019
passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and judgment dated
27.04.2021 passed in O.A. No.989/2018.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present
petitioners had taken a term loan for business purposes from the
respondent-bank in the year 2013. The petitioners paid regular
EMIs but due to certain financial difficulties and on account of loss
in business, the account of the petitioners become NPA.
Counsel submitted that Ministry of Finance issued a Gazette
Notification dated 06.09.2018 whereby limit of recovery
proceedings under The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and
Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act of 1993') before
(2 of 6) [CW-9341/2021]
the DRT was increased from Rs.10 lacs to Rs.20 lacs and matters
above Rs.20 lacs could be filed before the DRT.
Counsel submitted that the Notification dated 06.09.2018
was put to challenge before the Division Bench of this Court and
there was an interim order passed on 11.11.2018.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent-bank
taking advantage of the stay granted by this Court, filed an
original application under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and
Bankruptcy Act, 1993 before the DRT, Jaipur on 17.11.2018 and
said O.A. was accepted by the DRT, subject to the final outcome of
the pending petition.
Counsel submitted that writ petition pending before this
Court was finally decided vide judgment dated 01.07.2019.
Counsel submitted that the application filed by the
respondent-bank was returned by the DRT, Jaipur on 23.07.2019
and as such the application filed by the respondent-bank became
final and same was no more pending.
Counsel submitted that the DRT, Jaipur vide order dated
16.10.2019 passed an order said to be in compliance of Ministry of
Finance Department of Financial Services issued a letter dated
01.08.2019 and the Tribunal found that cases which were filed
before the DRT, Jaipur during stay period that is 26.09.2018 to
30.06.2019 were to continue in DRT, Jaipur till its conclusion.
Counsel submitted that the DRT, Jaipur on 22.10.2019 had
taken up the O.A. of the respondent-bank for admission and
issued notices to the petitioners.
Counsel submitted that since the original application of the
respondent-bank was already permitted to be withdrawn and
proceedings were no more pending, as such DRT, Jaipur proceeded
(3 of 6) [CW-9341/2021]
exparte against the petitioners and passed the order on
27.04.2021 and the same is under challenge before this Court.
Counsel submitted that the clarification which was issued by
the Ministry of Finance Department of Financial Services on
01.08.2019 was only applicable in respect of those proceedings
where O.A. were filed during stay period and they were to
continue before DRT, till their conclusion and since the proceedings
against the petitioners were already concluded, as such, the
Tribunal has committed grave error in passing the impugned order
as well as the final order.
Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is no
inherent power with the DRT to recall its order or to treat any
application for revival of proceedings and then to decide on
merits.
Counsel submitted that assuming, if power is conferred in
DRT, as per the provision contained in Section 19(25) of the
Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act,
1993, the same power does not authorize Debt Recovery Tribunal
to pass order of the nature which has been passed in the present
case.
Counsel in support of his submissions places reliance on a
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Standard
Chartered Bank Vs. Dharminder Bhohi and Ors., reported in
JT 2013 (13) SC 69.
Mr. Ajay Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-bank has raised preliminary objection and submitted
that present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not
maintainable in view of statutory appeal provided under Section
(4 of 6) [CW-9341/2021]
20 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993 (for short 'the DRT
Act, 1993)
Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any
illegality in passing the order dated 22.10.2019 as the application
was revived in view of Notification issued by the Ministry of
Finance and proper notice was issued to the petitioners for
appearing.
Counsel submitted that in spite of service being effected on
the petitioners when no one appeared, the Tribunal was
constrained to proceed exparte and finally an order dated
27.04.2021 has been passed.
Counsel submitted that not only the application filed by the
respondent-bank against the present petitioners was taken up and
revived by the DRT, there were also many such cases where
similar orders were passed and as such the petitioners have not
been singled out for deciding the original application filed by the
respondent-bank.
Counsel submitted that if at all, the petitioners have any
grievance, the same cannot be allowed to be raised in the present
writ petition and petitioners are required to approach the
appropriate appellate authority.
Counsel further submitted that once the Division Bench of
this Court had decided the writ petition on 01.07.2019 and
Notification of the Union of India was upheld, the necessary
clarification was issued by the Ministry of Finance and it was
followed throughout the country for entertaining the original
applications of having pecuniary jurisdiction as was prescribed in
the Notification.
(5 of 6) [CW-9341/2021]
Counsel further submitted that the non-appearance of the
petitioners before the authorities and further not paying a single
penny after receipt of substantial loan amount, speak volumes
about the conduct and bonafides of the present petitioners and in
the writ jurisdiction, the conduct of the petitioners does not make
them entitled for any equitable relief.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that initial original application which was
filed by the respondent-bank was not entertained by the DRT,
Jaipur, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench and
accordingly the original application along with the documents was
returned back to the respondent-bank.
This Court finds that on 16.10.2019 after Notification was
issued the Registrar directed all such cases to be listed before the
Presiding Officer for further orders. The Presiding Officer of DRT on
22.10.2019 had taken up the case/original application and earlier
order of return of O.A. was recalled.
This Court finds that if any litigation was pending in respect
of Notification issued by the Union of India whereby pecuniary
jurisdiction was prescribed/enhanced and later on challenge to the
said Notification came to be dismissed, the power of Debt
Recovery Tribunal, was required to be exercised as per the
Notification dated 01.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Finance.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that
DRT had become functus-officio after return of O.A. suffice it to
say by this Court that if the Notification of the Union of India was
upheld and matters were required to be dealt with as per
pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed by the DRT, the DRT has not
(6 of 6) [CW-9341/2021]
committed any error by taking up those original applications which
were not entertained due to pendency of the cases before the
High Court.
A perusal of sub-section (25) of Section 19 of the Act of
1993 also provides that the Tribunal can pass orders and give
directions which may be necessary or expedient to give effect to
its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends
of justice.
This Court finds that if proper notice is given to a party
concerned about revival of proceedings and the party concerned
does not respond back, such act of the party, who received
notice, will not preclude the Tribunal to proceed further and the
principles of natural justice have been followed.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that since issue of jurisdiction is involved, as such petitioners were
not bound to respond back, this Court will not accept the said
submission and even if some objection is raised about jurisdiction,
the party concerned is always at liberty to raise all objections
including the objection of jurisdiction before the authority who has
issued such notice.
This Court finds that the petitioners have got statutory
alternative remedy to challenge the orders which have been
passed by the DRT and the petition cannot be entertained by this
Court.
The petition stands dismissed accordingly. The petitioners
are always free to avail the statutory remedy provided under the
law.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
RAJAT KUMAR/s-156
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
