ALLAHABAD BANK, CALCUTTA versus RADHA KRISHNA MAITY AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 10-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ALLAHABAD BANK, CALCUTTA 
v. 
RADHA KRISHNA MAITY AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER I 0, 1999 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND A.~. MISRA, JJ.] 
Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, (Act 
No. 51 of 1993)-Section 19 (6)-Interim order passed by Debts Recovery 
Tribunal-Validity of-Held : It can pass any interim order which is in 
C conformity with the principles of natural justice-Section 19 (6) does not 
limit the generality of the powers granted to Tribunal under Section 22 (1 ), 
which are very wide-Powers of Tribunal not limited by Civil Procedure 
Code in granting interim orders. 
D 
The challenge in this case is to an interim order passed by the Debts 
Recovery Tribunal injuncting the respondents from taking any money from 
Mis. B. The interim order was passed after the respondents refused to accept 
an advance copy of the application filed before the Tribunal by the appellant. 
Aggrieved, the respondents approached High Court under Article 227 of the 
Constitution challenging jurisdiction of the Tribunal in passing an order • 
E which was beyond the scope of Section 19 (6) of the Act High Court set aside 
the Tribunal's order against which this appeal has been filed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal certainly has powers to pass other types of 
F injunction orders or stay orders apart from what is stated in Section 19 (6). 
It may issue notice and after hearing the opposite side, pass orders. Or, it 
may pass ad interim orders without hearing the opposite side and then give 
a subsequent hearing to the opposite party and pass final orders. Section 22 
(2) too does not limit the general powers referred to in Section 22 (1). On 
G the facts of the case, the counsel for the respondents refused to accept notice. 
Therefore the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order. Thus, the 
Tribunal had conformed to the principles of !latural justice. The Tribunal 
was therefore, very much within its powers in passing the order in question. 
The High Court therefore, erred in holding that the Tribunal had exceeded 
its jurisdiction and its order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. [295-C-F] 
H 
290 
... 
' 
ALLAHABAD BANK v. R.K. MAITY [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 291 
2. The scope and the extent of the powers of the Tribunal are mainly A 
referred to in sub-clause (1) of Section 22 of the Act which says that the 
Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil 
Procedure but shall be guided by principles of natural justice. The Tribunal 
can exercise powers contained in the Code of Civil Procedure and can even 
go beyond the Code as long as it passes orders in conformity with the B 
principles of natural justice. Section 19 (6) does not in any manner limit the 
generality of the power of the Tribunal under Section 22 (1). It merely states 
that certain types of injunction or stay orders may be passed by the Tribunal. 
The provision is an enabling provision and merely states that certain types 
of injunction or stay orders mentioned therein can be passed by the Tribunal 
but such an enumeration cannot be deemed to be exhaustive nor restricting C 
the Tribunal's powers only to those types of inj.unction or stay orders. The 
width and amplitude of the powers are to be gathered from Section 22 (1). 
In addition, Rule 18 enables the Tribunal to pass orders to secure the ends 
of justice. [294-G-H; 295-A-C] 
Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco D 
Industries Ltd and Ors., [1994) 4 SCC 710, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4999 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.98 of the Calcutta High Court E 
in C.O. No. 1238of1998. 
Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Ms. Sobha and S.K. Mehta for the Appellant. 
Bhaskar P. Gupta, Chanchal Kumar, Ms. Sarla Chandra and Ranjan F 
Mukherjee for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted. 
The Allahabad Bank, Calcutta has filed this appeal against the order of .G 
the Calcutta High Court dated 19.6.98 in C.O. 1238/98. By that order passed 
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court set aside the 
order dated 30.4.98 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, 
Calcutta (under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions 
Act, (Act No.51 of 1993) (hereinafter called the 'Act'). 
H 
..... 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The facts of the case are that the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.