AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Admit.
Shri Bhag Chand Jain, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned orders dated 8th August, 2008 (Annexure-6) and 12th August, 2008 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent No. 2 - Recovery Officer II, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur.
Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection that the impugned orders passed by the respondent No. 2 Recovery Officer are appelable u/s 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, ''the Act of 1993''), therefore, the petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal, and consequently this writ petition should be dismissed only on this ground alone.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that this Court has jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to see the legality and propriety of the impugned orders passed by the Recovery Officer, directly. He further contended that one another application u/s 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, ''SICA'') was filed before the Tribunal by the petitioner No. 2, but, instead of staying the recovery in pursuance of certificate of recovery, the Tribunal stayed the proceedings of the appeal itself, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in filing the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Recovery Officer, before the Tribunal.
The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that an application on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 in another case was filed to stay the proceedings of the appeal itself, and the Tribunal stayed the same; and, as and when any application along-with the appeal is filed against the impugned order, to stay the order of Recovery Officer, the effect of Section 22 of the SICA then definitely the Tribunal will consider the same. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders along-with other documents annexed with the writ petitions.
There is no dispute in between both the parties that the impugned orders dated 08.08.2009 and 12.08.2008 have been passed by Recovery Officer of the Tribunal, which is appealable u/s 30 of the Act of 1993. Section 30 of the Act of 1993 is reproduced as under:
Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
(2) On receipt of an appeal under Sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under Sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).
The impugned orders have been passed by the Recovery Officer while exercising the powers under Sections 25 to 28 of the Act, therefore, the same are appealable under Sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act of 1993 before the Tribunal.
In view of the above, it is clear that the petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedy by way of statutory appeal provided u/s 30 of the Act of 1993 against the impugned orders and, in these circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is dismissed only on this ground alone.
It is made clear that as and when an appeal is preferred by the petitioners against the impugned orders before the Tribunal, then the Tribunal will definitely consider the effect of Section 22 of the Act of 1993.
The costs is made easy.