LexT.P. VISHNU KUMAR versus CANARA BANK P.N. ROAD, TIRUPPUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 977 T.P. VISHNU KUMAR v. CANARA BANK P.N. ROAD, TIRUPPUR & ORS. (SLP (C) Nos. 1258-1260 of 2013) FEBRUARY 11, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) A B Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction under - In the matter of recovery of dues to the Bank under Recovery of Debts Act - Original application filed by Bank C before Debt Recovery Tribunal - The defendants filing applications before Tribunal for direction to the Bank to produce certain documents - Application dismissed - Writ Petition - Single Judge of High Court holding that documents were necessary for filing Additional Written Statement - D Division Bench of High Court allowed Writ Appeal holding that the defendant had alternative remedy available u/s. 20 of the Act - On appeal, held: When specific remedy is available u/ s. 20, interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is not justified - Powers under Article 226 cannot be invoked E in the matter of recovery of dues under the Act, unless there is any statutory violation resulting in prejudice to party or where such proceedings are arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair - Single Judge decided the matter on merit which is impermissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 - F Intervention of the writ court has delayed the proceedings for four years defeating the very purpose and object of the Act - Recovery of Debts Due to Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - s. 20 - Administration of Justice. The respondent-Bank filed Original Application G against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 6 before Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of total amount of Rs. 1,59,51,477 .93 with interest @ 17%. The appellant and 977 H 978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed interim applications before the tribunal seeking a direction to produce the extract of accounts as well as documents relating to banking transactions. The applications were rejected on the ground that the intention of the petitioner was only to B delay the proceedings. Petitioner challenged the order of the Tribunal in a Writ Petition. Single Judge of High Court allowed the petition holding that the documents were necessary for the purpose of filing additional written statement. Division Bench of High Court allowed the writ c appeal, holding that alternative remedy was available ul s. 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Hence the present petition. D Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. Debt Recovery Tribunals in the country are established for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial E Institutions Act, 1993 provides the mechanism to an aggrieved party, if he is dissatisfied with an order passed by the tribunal. Section 20 of the Act says that any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under the Act may prefer an appeal to an F Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. When a specific remedy is made available to the aggrieved party under Section 20 of the Act, the Single Judge of the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was not justified in interfering G with the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. [Paras 6 and 8] [981-E-H; 982-A-B, E-F] H 2. Powers of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked in the matter of recovery of dues under the Act, unless there is any statutory violation resulting in T.P. VISHNU KUMAR v. CANARA BANK P.N. ROAD, 979 TIRUPPUR prejudice to the party or where such proceedings or A action is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. When the Act itself provides for a mechanism, by an appeal under Section 20 of the Act, the High Court is not justified in invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine that the rejection of the applications by the tribunal was B correct or not. The petitioner and the contesting respondents have no case that either the Bank or the Tribunal had violated any statutory provisions by rejecting their applications. Writ petition was preferred against the rejection of applications and the same were c entertained by the Single Judge of High Court and decided on merits, which is impermissible while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.