AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Ch.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. V.V.S.N.Raju, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, inter alia, has assailed the validity of the order dated 27.02.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”) by which the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 without considering the contentions of the counter filed by the petitioner.
Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the respondent No.1, namely Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (SASF), filed a petition under Section 19 of the Recovery of the Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 1993 Act”), for recovery of amount of Rs.695,07,54,705/-. The petitioner herein was arrayed as the respondent in the aforesaid proceeding in the capacity of a guarantor. During the proceeding, SASF filed an application to receive the additional documents on record. The petitioner filed a counter to the aforesaid application. However, the aforesaid application was allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 01.10.2018. The said order reads as under:
Counter not filed in IA 2474/18 by R5. No representation. Heard. Petition allowed subject to proof of relevancy. For applicant evidence before registrar posted to 10.10.18.
The petitioner thereupon filed a review petition, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner had filed a counter to I.A.No.2474 of 2018 i.e., the application seeking to receive additional documents on record. However, the same was not considered. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jang Singh v. Brij Lal AIR 1966 SC 1631 and Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan AIR 1999 SC 3381.
The Tribunal on 27.02.2019 passed an order, the relevant extract of which reads as under:
Heard and perused the material brought on record.
On perusal of the record, it is clear that the Petitioner/Respondent No.5 filed counter in I.A.2474/28 and by mistake, docket order dt.01.10.2018 is passed as ‘counter not filed’.
In view of the above, it is clear that there occurred a typographical mistake in the order dt.01.10.2018 passed in I.A.2474/18. However, the marking of documents is valid since the bank marked the said documents in the presence of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and the Petitioner was silent and did not file any petition at that time.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, Rev. Application 14/18 is allowed and the impugned order dt.01.10.2018 passed in I.A.2474/18 is revised as under:
“Counter filed by the Respondent No.5 in I.A.2474/18. NO representation. Heard Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. I.A. allowed.”
Post the matter on 15.03.2019.
The petitioner thereupon filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and a Bench of this Court had passed an ad interim order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the counter filed by the petitioner to the interlocutory application filed on behalf of the SASF to receive the additional documents was considered nor the grounds urged in the review petition were considered. Therefore, the impugned order is cryptic and arbitrary.
On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the SASF, with his usual fairness, submitted that the order is bereft of any reasons.
We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.
We are aware of the salutary principle laid down by the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu (2023) 2 SCC 168.
The writ jurisdiction of this Court should not be invoked in the face of availability of an alternative remedy. It is that against an order passed by the Tribunal under the 1993 Act, an appeal under Section 20 of the 1993 Act lies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
However, in the peculiar facts of the case, we are not inclined to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal for the following reasons:
i) It is trite law that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to assign reasons for passing the order. In view of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity (2010) 3 SCC 732, reasons were held to be the heartbeat of every conclusion, apart from being an essential feature of the principles of natural justice that ensure transparency and fairness in the decision making process (See Maya Devi v. Raj Kumari Batra (2010) 9 SCC 486, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 13 SCC 336, Union of India v. Talwinder Singh (2012) 5 SCC 480 and Union of India v. Ravinder Kumar (2015) 12 SCC 291).
ii) The impugned order dated 27.02.2019 is bereft of reasons and suffers from vice of non application of mind. In the absence of the reasons being recorded in the impugned order, it is futile for us to relegate the petitioner to the alternative remedy, as the petitioner would not effectively be able to avail of the right of appeal in the absence of grounds on which the application was rejected.
iii) The contentions urged in the review petition have not been adverted to by the Tribunal.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.02.2019 is quashed and set aside. The Tribunal is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the parties and to decide the review petition by a speaking order expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. It is clarified that all the contentions which are available to the parties, including the maintainability of the review petition, are kept open to be agitated before the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.