AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.
I.A. No. 1132 of 2015
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw I.A. No. 1132 of 2015 to move in a separate appropriate proceeding before the competent forum.
Accordingly this interlocutory application is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner.
C.W.J.C. No. 8921 of 2014
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bank of India.
The petitioner confines this writ application to the relief mentioned in paragraph 1(a).
The short issue which has been raised by the petitioner is that after a final order having been passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on 25.2.2014, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure 15, the Tribunal could not have entertained the Misc. Application bearing M.A. No. 190 of 2014 and made modification in the earlier order dated 25.3.2014 without granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the modification appears to be a clerical one, whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such modification may cause the petitioner about Rs. three - four crores.
Be that as it may, it is well settled that such orders leading to civil consequences could not have been passed in the absence of affected party which has admittedly been done after about two months from the date of passing of the order contained in Annexure 12.
Ordinarily this Court would not have entertained this application as there is appellate authority under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 but in the case in hand this Court has already reached to the conclusion that the concerned order suffers from vice of violation of the settled principle of natural justice.
Accordingly, without going into the merit of the cases of the respective parties or any other details, in my considered opinion this writ application would succeed on the aforesaid short issue itself as the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna has made serious error of jurisdiction by passing such order without granting any opportunity to the petitioner though he has been impleaded as opposite party in the case concerned.
Accordingly, order dated 5.5.2014, as contained in Annexure 15, is quashed and set aside.
The petitioner would be required to appear before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna on 18.2.2015 in M.A. Case No. 190 of 2014 and file his objection and on that day the respondent Bank would also be well represented. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna would fix a date and dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of ten days on its own merit and in accordance with law. If the petitioner does not appear on 18th February, 2015 then in such case the order which has been quashed will automatically revive.
Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.