Associate High Pressure Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs Union Bank Of India

S. Ravi Kumar, J

This Appeal is preferred against order dated 17.7.2019 in Interim Application (I.A.) No. 283/2018 Original Application (O.A.) No. 326/2017 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal No. II, Ahmedabad, wherein Tribunal below passed impugned order holding that the objections of the appellants with regard to jurisdiction will be considered at the time of final disposal of O.A.

Heard both sides.

Advocate for appellants submitted that appellants filed I.A. No. 425/2017 and I.A. No. 283/2018 raising preliminary objections, but the Tribunal below without deciding those applications made the above referred observation that said objection will be considered at the time of disposal of main O.A. It is submitted that as the objection is raised with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal below, the Tribunal below ought to have decided it first and as the Tribunal below has not considered that request present Appeal is preferred.

When this Tribunal put a question to learned Counsel for appellants as to under what provision those Interim Applications are filed to decide the jurisdiction aspect as preliminary issue, without pointing out to the provisions he has referred to Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Jitendra Kumar Khan & Anr. v. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, W. Bengal & Ors., , Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. State Bank of Hyderabad & Ors., II (1998) BC 241 and Judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. & Ors., II (2001) BC 182 (DB) : AIR 2001 Rajasthan 107 and submitted that as per Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the RDDB & FI Act) the Tribunal has power to regulate its own procedure to meet ends of justice by following principles of natural justice. He further submitted that Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has held that territorial jurisdiction issue when raised has to be decided at the earliest stage to decide whether the Tribunal below has got necessary jurisdiction to decide the main case.

In answer to the above arguments of Advocate for appellants, Advocate for respondent Bank submitted that as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr., VII (2005) SLT 240 : IV (2005) CLT 45 : (2005) 7 SCC 791, the jurisdiction aspect has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity. But in this case O.A. is filed on 27.3.2017 and the right to file written statement is closed and thereafter appellants filed application (I.A. No. 283/2018) on 8.6.2018. It is submitted that opportunity was given to appellants to file their written statement, but they have not availed it and the Tribunal below closed their right to file their written statement and long after it they filed it i.e. nearly 15 months after filing of the O.A. and as per Hon'ble Supreme Court's above decision such an application cannot be entertained.

I have perused the impugned order and the decisions relied on both side Advocates. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. (supra), clearly held that objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Court has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case before settlement of issues. As per procedure of RDDB & FI Act there is no practice of framing issues but the defendants have to file their written statement within 30 days time the Tribunal below for special reasons can extend it by 15 days and the total period allowed for filing written statement is 45 days. Admittedly, in this case till now the defendants i.e. appellants herein have not filed their written statement and it is also not in dispute that their right to file written statement is closed and that order is not challenged by appellants. When that that is the situation, what is the right appellants have got to file application, unless it is provided by statute. Learned Counsel for appellants could not draw my attention to any of the provisions of RDDB & FI Act to show that appellants have right to file such application at any stage of the proceedings. When Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred case has held that the jurisdiction aspect has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, it is for the appellants to show what steps they have taken to raise this objection at the earliest point of time. But the appellants have not shown any such steps. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also clarified that jurisdiction issue cannot be raised after framing of issues. In this case as seen from the order dated 17.7.2019 the O.A. is now at the final stage of arguments. After receiving Claim Affidavit of applicant in support of the O.A., which means that stage of framing issues is over and trial has commenced. From the impugned order is clear that right of appellants with regard to their objection of jurisdiction is not finally disallowed. The Tribunal below recorded that their objection will be considered in the main O.A. So as rightly pointed by Advocate for respondent Bank, appellants have not suffered any prejudice because their right to raise objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction aspect is still available. It is not in dispute that legal issues like jurisdiction, limitation etc. can be raised even without written statement and at any point before final disposal of the matter.

In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by Advocate for respondent Bank, the decisions cited by Advocate for appellants have no application to this case, particularly when they failed to show their statutory right to file application raising jurisdiction issue without filing written statement.

For these reasons, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal below has not committed any error and I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.7.2019 and the Appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly appeal is dismissed with costs.

All Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.