Dr. Rajul Vishnubhai Mesvani vs Central Bank of India

Ashok Menon, Chairperson

The appeal is filed challenging the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.) dated 18.08.2023 wherein the undertaking given by the appellant to pay the entire debt and dues to the bank was recorded, and since nothing was remaining in the appeal to be decided and the appeal too was disposed of.

The appellant now comes in appeal. The copy of the impugned order was made available at the time of passing of the interlocutory order in the waiver application and the waiver application was considered in which the order of the Recovery Officer and the Roznama of the Recovery Officer in the Recovery proceedings were considered in detail, and it was found that the recovery proceedings without being restored to file, the impugned order were passed by the Ld. R.O., and therefore, there was good ground for the appellant to challenge the sale in the appeal u/s 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDB “Act” for short).

It is now clear that the appeal was disposed of by the Ld. P.O. solely based on the undertaking which was allegedly given by the appellant agreeing to pay off the entire debt within one month. Section 20 (2) makes it clear that no appeal shall lie to this Appellate Tribunal from an order made by a Tribunal with the consent of the parties and therefore, this appeal challenging the disposal of the appeal based on the written undertaking given by the appellant would not lie.

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argues that his client was coerced to make such an undertaking before the Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that his client is a doctor by profession and the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank has also produced the undertaking that was submitted by the appellant in his handwriting which indicates that there is no amount of coercion and fraud as alleged.

The appellant was also represented by his Counsel who was present before the Tribunal when the impugned order was made. And therefore, the appellant cannot be heard to say that the undertaking was given under coercion and fraud.

The submissions made before the Tribunal by the appellant and his Counsel were recorded and the appeal was disposed of. When a juridical order is pronounced order based on the undertaking and submission made by the Counsel in the opened Tribunal, the correctness of it cannot be challenged in appeal for it is not for this Tribunal to consider the correctness or veracity of the said submissions made before the Tribunal below. If at all it has to be challenged, it can only be challenged before the concerned Juridical Officer who has made the juridical order, by way of a review. Hence, the only remedy available to the appellant is to file an appropriate application before the concerned Tribunal and convince the Tribunal about the submissions recorded being made under duress/coercion or fraud.

Hence, I find that the appeal is not maintainable and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.