Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4246 (MAD)

A. K. Kamarudeen v. Bank of India & Others

2008-11-18

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment : The civil revision petitioner has filed I.A.No.94 of 2008 in T.A.No.5 of 2006 as 4th applicant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai praying for an order that the sale conducted by the 6th respondent on 6. 2006 which was concluded in favour of the second respondent therein may be set aside and I.A.No.95 of 2008 in T.A.NO.5 of 2006 has been filed by the revision petitioner along with other applicant for stay of dispossession. 2. It appears that the revision petitioner has filed I.A.No. 645 of 2008 in T.A.No.5 of 2006 and I.A.No.646 of 2008 in T.A.No.5 of 2006 praying for an order from the said Tribunal to direct the panel valuer to produce the notes of proceedings and to summon the panel valuer of the respondent Bank who has valued the property for the purpose of cross examination under Section 22(2)(H) r/w Section 17(7) of the SARFEASI Act. .3. The Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai by order dated 11. 2008 has passed the following order . ."IAs 94 and 95/08 are filed under 19(2)(i) of RDDB & FI Act. Call on 111. 2008 for hearing arguments on the point of maintainability. In the arguments are not advanced orders will be passed as per the available records. .4. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai is not taking note of two I.A Nos.645 of 2008 and 646 of 2008 and further the Tribunal has not issued notice to the parties in that applications but insists the revision petitioner that arguments in I.A.No.94 of 2008 and I.A.No.95 of 2008 are to be advanced on the point of maintainability and that if the arguments are not advanced then the orders will be passed as per the available records and the Tribunal has predetermined the issue before hearing the application to summon the panel valuer and to produce the notes of proceedings and that by directing the revision petitioner to advance the arguments on the point of maintainability in I.A.Nos.94 of 2008 and 95 of 2008 and the Tribunal has committed a clear abuse of principles of natural justice and that the Tribunal even without giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner to prove his case, has committed an error by posting the matter for maintainability, after more than six months inspite of granting an order of stay. 5. 5. Now the revision petitioner has filed M.P.No.1 of 2008 praying this Court to stay all further proceedings in I.A.Nos. 94 of 2008 and 95 of 2008 in T.A.No.5 of 2006 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai pending disposal of the revision petition. 6. It is to be borne in mind that as per Section 17(2) r/w Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 (51 of 1993), the civil revision petitioner can seek recourse under the mechanisms provided under the Act, inclulding filing of an appeal, if he is so aggrieved. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has not filed any appeal as against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai dated 11. 2008. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 (51 of 1993), is meant to provide speedy remedy for recovery of debts. 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the Tribunal may be directed to take up I.A.Nos.645 of 2008 and 646 of 2008 before hearing I.A.Nos.94 of 2008 and 95 of 2008 on the point of maintainability. 8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that when an order dated 11. 2008 has been passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, directing I.A.Nos.94 of 2008 and 95 of 2008 to be heard on the point of maintainability in other two I.A.Nos.645 of 2008 and 646 of 2008 no date for adjournment has been assigned by the Tribunal. 9. The right of an appeal is a substantive right. The appellate Tribunal can exercise the power and authority of entertaining an appeal against any order made or deemed to have been made by the Tribunal. 10. Inasmuch as the revision petitioners grievance is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not even entertaining the application I.A.Nos.645 of 2008 and 646 of 2008 for the purpose of hearing, since other two I.A.Nos. 94 of 2008 and 95 of 2008 have been posted for hearing today(111. 2008) from 11. 10. Inasmuch as the revision petitioners grievance is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is not even entertaining the application I.A.Nos.645 of 2008 and 646 of 2008 for the purpose of hearing, since other two I.A.Nos. 94 of 2008 and 95 of 2008 have been posted for hearing today(111. 2008) from 11. 2008 and on an overall assessment of facts and circumstances of the case and also bearing in mind the fact that the revision petitioner has to seek recourse under the mechanisms provided under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993(51 of 1993) and the rules framed thereunder and further the procedure adumbrated under the Act cannot be derailed in any manner and since the Tribunal is not bound by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code but guided by the Principles of natural justice, on the basis of equity and fair play, this Court directs the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai to take up I.A.Nos.645 and 646 of 2008 along with I.A.Nos.94 and 95 of 2008 and to dispose of the same on merits to prevent aberration of justice,within a period of ten days from the date of passing of this order. The revision petitioner is directed to co-operate with the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai in regard to the completion of the proceedings in the aforesaid I.As so that the disputes/controversies can be thrashed out completely and comprehensively so as to give a quietus once for all in the interest of parties concerned, including the Auction Purchaser. 11. The civil revision petition is disposed off in above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.