T.G. Lakshminath vs The Chief Manager, The Federal Bank Ltd.

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is assailing the order dated 13.11.2013 in I.R. No. 1113/2013 at Annexure-A to the petition. The petitioner herein was one of the defendants in O.A. No. 440/2009. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was initiated by the Bank for recovery of the amount from the petitioner. On disposal of the proceedings, the petitioner had filed a Miscellaneous Petition and when there was delay, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay. The Debts Recovery Tribunal while considering the same on coming to the conclusion that the delay is inordinate of about 3� years has rejected the application seeking condonation of delay. Consequent thereupon, the Miscellaneous Petition seeking restoration of original proceedings is also terminated. The petitioner is therefore before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would no doubt contend that at the first instance, the petitioner had not been served notice through the Debts Recovery Tribunal and even though the postal endorsement indicates "left", the petitioner has been place exparte and the matter has been proceeded. In any event, this is an aspect which could be assailed by the petitioner since from the provisions of the Act it is seen that Section 20 of the Act provides for appeal being filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In my opinion, since the present application has been rejected and the recovery certificate passed in original proceedings would stand confirmed, an appeal of the said nature is required to be filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would however refer to the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Hotel Vandana Palace Vs. Authorized Officer Under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Others, to contend that a Division Bench of this Court has held that an appeal remedy is not an efficacious remedy. However, a perusal of the same would indicate that such decision was rendered in a proceedings arising under the SARFAESI Act where a First Appeal is provided to the Debts Recovery Tribunal u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the remedy of appeal u/s 18 to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was being considered in that circumstance. In that view, I am of the opinion that the said judgment would not be applicable to the instant facts where the original proceedings itself is before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the First appeal is provided to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the Hon''ble Supreme Court has already held that it is an alternate and efficacious remedy, the petitioner would have to avail the alternate remedy of appeal in the instant, case and liberty is reserved to the petitioner to do so.

Petition is disposed of accordingly.