AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
The Appellants are in appeal aggrieved by the rejection of a praecipe filed by the Appellants of relisting of Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 1633 of 2023 in I.A. No. 2321 of 2022 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 199 of 2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal -II, Mumbai (D.R.T.) vide proceedings dated 30.10.2023. The proceedings of the Ld. Presiding Officer on mentioning reads thus:
“Perused the praecipe and heard the applicant’s counsel who was unable to convince the Tribunal showing urgency for out of turn hearing. Let the pleadings be completed by the parties. Liberty to mention thereafter.”
The Appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal.
A reading of the proceeding extracted above indicates that the Ld. Presiding Officer was not convinced about the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants for early hearing of the interlocutory application referred to above. It is, however, made clear that after completing the pleadings by the parties, the liberty to mention again is granted. Instead of mentioning the matter once again before the Ld. Presiding Officer, the Appellants have preferred to file an appeal under Sec. 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short).
Any person aggrieved by any order made by the D.R.T. under Sec. 17 may prefer an appeal to this Tribunal. Hence, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants seeks indulgence of this Tribunal to interfere in appeal. The reliefs sought in the appeal are, to quash the order dated 30.10.2023 and direct the D.R.T. to dispose of the S.A. and I.As. within two months and pending final disposal of this Misc. Appeal grant a stay to the instalments payable by the Appellants to the Respondent in terms with I.A. No. 1633 of 2023 pending before the D.R.T.
Prima facie, the appeal is not maintainable. It would be difficult to interfere in the day-to-day hearing of the D.R.T. about which matter is to be heard on priority. It is for the Ld. Presiding Officer to decide on a praecipe for an early hearing depending on the workload of the Tribunal. The statute already provides for the efficacious disposal of matters in a time-bound manner. Older matters are to be given priority. The D.R.T.-II, Mumbai is a Tribunal having plenty of older matters which need to be prioritised in disposal. It is, therefore, not for this Tribunal in appeal to decide on which matter is to be taken up expeditiously.
To entertain an appeal, the Appellants will have to comply with the mandatory provisions under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. This Tribunal indeed has the general power of superintendence and control over the Tribunals under its jurisdiction but under Sec. 17-A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. However, for exercising this jurisdiction, it may not be appropriate to interfere in the routine functioning of the Tribunal. Since liberty has been granted to the Appellants to mention the matter again, there does not seem to be any injustice to the parties for interference in the appeal.
The appeal and the applications are, therefore, dismissed in limine with a direction to the Ld. Presiding Officer to consider the matter afresh in case a fresh praecipe is moved for urgent hearing.