Krishna Rice Mill and Others vs Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and Another

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the Debt Recovery Case No. 105 of 2003 (State Bank of India v. Krishna Rice Mills) in pursuance to the ex parte judgment dated 4-6-2003.

It appears that respondent State Bank of India filed an original application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of Rs. 33,64,370.98 along with 17.85% interest against the petitioner. In that case an ex parte judgment dated 4-6-2003 was passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad decreeing the claim of the State Bank of India vide Annexure-1 to the petition. Aggrieved the petitioner filed a Restoration Application u/s 22(1)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the same is pending for disposal. True copy of the application is Annexure-2 to the petition.

It is alleged that a recovery certificate has been issued against the petitioner in pursuance of the ex parte judgment of the Tribunal, and a prayer has been made that the same should be stayed till the disposal of the Restoration Application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 35757 of 2001 (Ratan Chand Deep Chand v. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal) decided on 8-11 -2001 which has been quoted in para 8 of the writ petition. In that decision this Court observed :--

"It is unfortunate that the Debt Recovery Tribunal without disposing of the application to recalling of the ex parte order fixed the date of auction.

It is expected that this type of procedure shall not be followed by the aforesaid Tribunal again. We also expect that the application for recalling of the order and restoration of case shall be disposed of as early as possible.

The writ petition stands disposed of by this order."

The petitioner has prayed that a similar order may be passed In this petition.

A large number of writ petitions are being filed in this Court seeking to take advantage of the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court dated 8-11-2001 (referred to above). It seems that a practice has developed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal of allowing an ex parte judgment to be passed and thereafter filing a Restoration Application and then a writ petition is filed in this Court praying for stay of the recovery proceedings till the Restoration Application is decided. This has been happening in a large number of cases. We feel that this is deliberately being done to avoid the recoveries.

It may be mentioned that every direction of the Court does not amount to a precedent.

As held in Delhi Administration (Now N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Manohar Lal, a mere direction of the Court without laying down any legal principle is not a precedent. As held in Municipal Committee, Amritsar Vs. Hazara Singh, it is only a statement of law laid down by a Court which Is a binding precedent. A precedent is an authority for what it actually decides vide Goodyear India Ltd., Gedore (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kelvinator of India Ltd. and the Food Corporation of India and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, As held in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Dhanwanti Devi and Others, etc. what is of essence in a decision is Its ratio and it !s only the principle laid down in a judgment which is binding.

The decision in Ratan Chand Deep Chand''s case (supra) does not in our opinion, lay down any principle of law, rather it only contains a direction. Hence it cannot be treated as a precedent. It seems that the process of this Court is being abused by various debtors and this practice should not be permitted to continue. The petitioner has a right of appeal under the Act to the Appellate Tribunal. Petition is dismissed.