AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This is application under Section 17A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") filed by the Applicant for a direction to the Learned DRT Siliguri for hearing of M.A. NDN 379 of 2025 expeditiously within a fixed time. A stay application, being I.A. 585 of 2026, is also filed wherein a relief is sought for an interim protection staying all further proceedings in respect of Recovery Certificate 105 of 2023 pending before the Recovery Officer.
Learned Counsel for Applicant would submit that M.A. NDN 379 of 2025 is still pending before the Learned DRT wherein relief sought for is, for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against the Applicant. Learned Counsel would enter into the merits of the matter to show that the ex parte decree was passed against law despite the fact that costs of Rs.10,000.00 imposed earlier by the Learned DRT was deposited within the time. However, despite it, proceedings were conducted ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed. Application for setting aside the same is pending which was listed on (31st) August, 2026 before the Learned DRT but due to non-availability of the Tribunal, now it is listed for hearing on (18th) November, 2026.
It is further submitted that the application is moved under Section 17A of the Act wherein there is a provision that the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal shall have general power of superintendence and control over the Tribunals. It is submitted that these powers are akin to the powers of the Hon'ble High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; hence this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass an order staying proceedings before the Recovery Officer in an application filed under Section 17A of the Act.
Learned Counsel has further raised certain issues relating to the merits of the matter which are not of much relevance as far as the disposal of this application is concerned.
Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submits that as far as the issue of expeditious disposal of M.A. NDN 379 of 2025 is concerned, Bank has no objection if a direction is issued for expeditious disposal of the same within a time bound manner. However, Learned Counsel opposed the prayer for any interim protection on the ground that such interim protection cannot be granted in such proceedings rather the Applicant, if aggrieved by the order of the Recovery Officer, should have filed an appeal before the DRT under Section 30 of the Act. It is further submitted that the order of the Recovery Officer was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench in C.O. 32 of 2026 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court after hearing on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. SLP No. 26537 of 2026 against the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5.8.2026. Learned Counsel although tried to make submission regarding merits of the matter but since they are not relevant for disposal of this application, we are not entering into the merits of the matter.
As far as the issue of disposal of M.A. NDN 379 of 2025, which is pending before the DRT Siliguri, is concerned, this application is moved to set aside the ex parte decree, passed against the Applicant. It is also brought on record that the Recovery Officer is proceeding in the Recovery Proceedings. Matter is listed before the Recovery Officer on 29th September, 2026 while M.A. NDN 379 of 2025 is listed before the Learned DRT on 18th November, 2026. If before the disposal of the M.A. NDN 379 of 2025 Recovery Officer proceeds, the whole purpose of moving application for setting aside the ex parte decree becomes redundant.
In such circumstances, a direction is to be issued to the Learned DRT to dispose of the M.A. NDN 379 of 2025 in a time bound manner. Accordingly, the date fixed by the Learned DRT, i.e., 18.11.2026, is cancelled. Parties are directed to appear before the Learned DRT Siliguri on the 11th of September, 2026. Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that pleadings are complete. Accordingly, Learned DRT Siliguri is directed to hear the matter on the date fixed, i.e., 11th September, 2026. If due to any reason matter could not be heard on that date, it is expected that Learned DRT should fix the matter on the next working day and to decide the matter on its own merits; in any case by 22nd of September, 2026.
As far as issue of staying the proceedings before the Recovery Officer is concerned, Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Banta Singh -vs- Diwan Singh (2025 SCC OnLine P&H 22104) and Sunita Khanna -vs- B.L. Gupta (2001 SCC OnLine Del 125). On the strength of those judgments Learned Counsel would submit that when an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending, execution proceedings should not proceed. As far as the case laws are concerned, such type of application should be moved before the Learned DRT wherein application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is pending.
As far as powers of the Appellate Tribunal regarding superintendence is concerned, no doubt Section 17A of the Act provides for superintendence and control over the Tribunals by the DRAT but these powers are specifically mentioned in sub clause 1 and 2 of Section 17A (1A) of the Act which reads as under:
"17-A. Power of Chairperson of Appellate Tribunal.-
(1)The Chairperson of an Appellate Tribunal shall exercise general power of superintendence and control over the Tribunals under his jurisdiction including the power of appraising the work and recording the annual confidential reports of Presiding Officers.
[(1-A) For the purpose of exercise of general powers of superintendence and control over Tribunals under sub-section (1), the Chairperson may-
(i)direct the Tribunals to furnish, in such form, at such intervals and within such time, information relating to pending cases both under this Art and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), or under any other law for the time being in force, number of cases disposed of, number of new cases filed and such other information as may be considered necessary by the Chairperson;
(ii)convene meetings of the Presiding Officers of Tribunals periodically to review their performance."
When specific provisions are there to challenge the order of the Recovery Officer under Section 30 of the Act and that option is not availed, Applicant can avail those options, if so advised, in accordance with law but no such directions could be passed in an application under Section 17A of the Act.
With the directions and observations made above, the application is disposed of.
Registry is hereby directed to communicate this to the Learned DRT Siliguri forthwith to ensure compliance.
Ms. Aparajita Rao has put in appearance on instructions.
File be consigned to Record room.
Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's Website.
Order pronounced in open Court.