Tulsi Bhatia vs Debts Recovery Tribunal

A.K. Gohil, J.—Heard Mr. Yagyadatta Sharma, learned Counsel for appellant on the question of admission.

Having heard him at length and after perusal of the record, we find no merit and substance in this appeal.

A suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,83,996/- has been filed by UCO Bank, Indbre against the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein u/s 19(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur. After being served with the summons of the said suit, appellant approached the Writ Court challenging issuance of the said summons on variety of reasons. Writ Court came to the conclusion that all objections which have been projected by the appellant in the writ petition can very well be taken by him in the written statement to be filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal would be in a better position to appreciate and adjudicate the objections that may be raised by him, in the result the writ petition filed by the appellant has been rejected, against such an order appellant is before this Court under Clause X of Letters Patent.

It has been contended that after passing of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge appellant has already submitted his written statement taking all objections in the same which were projected before the learned Single Judge and reiterated before us. If that be so, the Tribunal would be in a better position to appreciate and adjudicate all the objections so having been raised by the appellant. We find that no case for interference is made out when the matter is still sub judice before a Competent Court. The appeal being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed.