STANDARD CHARTERED BANK versus MSTC LIMITED

Citation: [2020] 2 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 21-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
v.
MSTC LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 501 of 2020)
JANUARY 21, 2020
[R.F. NARIMAN AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – ss. 19, 20, 21
and 22 – Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 – r.5A
– Application for review – Appellant-Bank filed an application u/s.
19 of the RDB Act for recovery of a sum of Rs.191,03,54,070.96/- –
An I.A. was filed by the appellant stating that given the admissions
contained in the balance of the relevant years of the respondent-
Company, a sum of Rs. 222,51,00,000/- was owed by the respondent
– The said I.A. was allowed by DRT – The respondent filed an appeal
against the said order before the DRAT – While pending appeal, a
review application was filed by the respondent before the DRT –
Thereafter, the appeal filed earlier was withdrawn – Meanwhile,
an application was filed to condone a delay of 28 days in filing the
review petition before the DRT – Application was dismissed by the
DRT – Writ Petition – The High Court held that no appeal would be
maintainable against the dismissal of the review petition and that
therefore, a writ petition would be maintainable – The High Court
also held that application u/s. 19 of the RDB Act would subsume an
application for review as a review application would originate from
an order passed u/s.19 , as per procedure prescribed u/s. 22 of the
RDB Act, and would therefore not be an application which could
be said to be independent of s. 19 of the Act – This being the case,
the High Court condoned the delay and set aside the judgment of
the DRT – On appeal, held: The judgment of the Supreme Court in
International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited makes
it plain, though in a slightly different context, that only application
that is referred to by s. 24 of the RDB Act is an application filed u/
s. 19 and no other – This being the case, an application for review,
not being an application u/s. 19, but an application u/s. 22 (2) (e)
   [2020] 2 S.C.R. 444
444
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
r/w. r. 5A of the Rules, this judgment would apply on all fours to
exclude applications which are review applications from the purview
of s. 24 of the RDB Act – The High Court also wrongly applied Or.
XLVII, r. 7 of the CPC – S. 22 (1) of the RDB Act makes it clear that
the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the
procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, making it clear
that Or. XLVII, r. 7 would not apply to the Tribunal – Further, s. 20
applies to all applications that may be made, including applications
for review and orders being made therein subject to appeal – Also,
s. 34 of the Act makes it clear that 1993 Act, will have overriding
effect over any other law for the time being in force, which includes
the Code of Civil Procedure – The High Court was clearly in error
in holding that no appeal would be maintainable against the
dismissal of the review petition and that a writ petition would be
maintainable – Therefore, the judgment of the High Court cannot
be sustained and is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Rules 2(b) and 2(c) of the Debt Recovery
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993  define  “applicant”  and
“application”,  respectively,  as including applicants and
applications filed under Section 19, 31A of the Recovery of Debts
and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 as well as appeals filed under Section
30(1) of the Act.  An application under Section 31A is an application
to enforce a decree or order passed by any court before the
commencement of the Amendment Act of 2000 and which has
not yet been executed. An appeal under Section 30(1) is an appeal
to the Tribunal against orders  of  the  Recovery  Officer  made
under  the Act. The reason why Rule 2(c) of the Rules defines
application as including an application under Section 31A and an
appeal filed under Section 31  of  the Act,  apart  from  applications
filed  under  Section  19,  is because under Rule 4 of the Rules,
the procedure for filing such applications/appeal is under Forms
I to III appended to the Rules. What is important  to note is that
even this extended definition,under the Rules, does not include
an  application for review filed under Rule 5A of the Rules. In
point of fact, Rule 7 makes it abundantly clear that each such
application, including applications for  review,  are  viewed
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. MSTC LIMITED
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME

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