LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 1 S. C.R. 480 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos.617-618 of 2013) JANUARY 22, 2013 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial C Institutions Act, 1993: Debt Recovery Tribunal (ORTS) and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals (ORA Ts) - Suggestions made for adequate space and infrastructure, smooth functioning, 0 Information Technology, Computerization, increase in number of DRTs and ORA Ts, eligibility criteria and appointment of Recovery Officers, vacancies and status of senior officers - Suggestions approved - Directions given to implement the suggestions expeditiously - High Courts shall keep a close E watch on the functioning of DRTs and ORA Ts which fell in their respective jurisdiction and ensure a smooth, efficient and transparent working of the said Tribunals - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.227. F Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 227 - Superintendence over DRTs and ORA Ts - Held: High Courts are empowered to exercise their jurisdiction of superintendence under Art. 227 in order to oversee the functioning of DRTs and ORA Ts - This power also extends G to administrative functioning of courts/tribunals - Recovery of Debts Due to Banking and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - s.18. Shalini Shyam Sheffy & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shanker Patil 2010 (8) SCR 836 = 2010 (8) sec 329 - relied on. H 480 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DEBTS RECOVERY 481 TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION Case Law Reference: A 2010 (8) SCR 836 relied on para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 617-618 of 2013. From the Judgment & Orders dated 18.09.2008 in CWP No. 11742 of 2007 and dated 21.08.2009 in Review Application No. 161 of 2009 in CWP No. 11742 of 2007 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. B Siddharth Luthra, ASG, Rajeev Mehra, (A.C.), Ashish C Virmani, Supriya Juneja, Rashmi Malhotra, Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Sushma Suri (for Shreekant N. Terdal) for the Appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered D ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of judgment dated 18th E September 2008 in CWP No. 11742 of 2007, and order dated 21st August 2009 in Review Application 161 of 2009, rendered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, whereby certain directions relating to provision for adequate space for the smooth functioning of the Debts Recovery Tribunals (for short F "the DRTs") at Chandigarh, have been issued. The circumstances that have led to the filing of these appeals are succinctly stated below. · 3. A Bench of the ORT was established at Chandigarh by the Union of India (for short "the UOI"), vide notification dated G 24th March 2000, in a rented building. Subsequently, a second Bench of the ORT was established, which was supposed to function from another premises. However, both the Benches continued to function from the same premises where the earlier H 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 1 S.C.R. A Bench was functioning. By a communication dated 20th July, 2007, the UOI directed that the second Bench would function from the premises acquired for it. Thereupon, the respondent Bar Association made a representation to the Presiding Officers of both the Benches, requesting them to inter a/ia, B continue to function from the premises from where the first ORT was functioning. However, in light of the aforesaid communication issued by the UOI, the request of the Bar Association was not acceded to. C 4. Aggrieved, the Bar Association filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, seeking directions to the UOI, to inter a/ia provide adequate accommodation for the functioning of both the DRTs; and to frame Rules for recruitment/ appointment of the Presiding Officer & the Recovery Officers. In light of the assurance on behalf of the UOI that adequate D space would be taken on lease for the smooth functioning of both the Benches at the same place, and that further, land was also being acquired for housing the DRTs, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the construction of the building shall be completed within three years from the date of its order. E However, the High Court did not examine the other issues referred to above on the ground that they were unrelated to the inadequacy of office space needed by the DRTs. 5. Having failed to get the said order reviewed, the UOI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.