Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1226 (MAD)

A. Kuthalingam v. State Bank of India

2008-04-10

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2008
Judgment :- This revision has been directed against the order passed in I.A.No.843 of 2006 in T.A.No.1912 of 2002 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying on AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1561 (Sadhana Lodh -v- National Insurance Co., Ltd and another) would contend that this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. According to the learned counsel, the order passed in I.A.No.843 of 2006 is under challenge by way of this revision, wherein the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks Financial Institutions Act 1993 (15 of 1993) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) provides an appeal against the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 20 of the said Act and that without availing the remedy of filing an appeal as provided under Section 20 of the Act, the revision petitioner has filed this revision petition which is not maintainable as per the dictum mentioned above. The relevant observation in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1561 (Sadhana Lodh -v- National Insurance Co., Ltd and another) runs as follows:- "The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy of filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution on the premises that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. Section 149 (2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) of the Act............... This being the legal position, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to High Court to entertain a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution". This being the legal position, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to High Court to entertain a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution". Relying on the order passed by this Court in CRP.(NPD).NO.3278 of 2007 dated 20.11.2007, the learned counsel for the respondent would also represent that a similar view has been taken in the following cases:- 1) D. Roja and seven others-v-Commissioner, Corporation of Madras Madras-3 ( 1998(1) CTC 338 ) 2) The Director of School Education, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-6 and others-v-G.Venkatesan (2004(4)CTC 696 3) P. Subramanian-v-M/s Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd ( 2004(5) CTC 718 4) S. Rangarajan and two others-v-M/s Nathans Foundation Ltd (2007(3)CTC 662) Under such circumstances, the revision is not maintainable when an appeal provision is available to the revision petitioner. 3. In fine, the revision petition is dismissed with a liberty to the revision petitioner to avail an appeal remedy as provided under Section 20 of the said Act. Time for the purpose of limitation will run from today. Interim stay is vacated. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.