Manoj Asopa v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Single Judge held that a Miscellaneous Application under Section 17A RDBFI Act read with Rule 22 DRAT Rules is not maintainable to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The power of superintendence is administrative, not judicial, and cannot overturn orders subject to appeal.
What did the court decide?
Miscellaneous Application Diary No.593 of 2021 dismissed as not maintainable.
What the court decided
M.A. Diary No. 593 of 2021
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
M.A. Diary No. 593 of 2021
(Arising out of I.A. 118 & 119 of 2021 in O.A. 175 of 2008 in R.C. 81 of 2015 in DRT-1, Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
Mr. Manoj Asopa, son of Late Ashoka Kumar Asopa, residing at Flat No. 202, Jessore Road, Lake Town, Kolkata – 700 091.
… Applicant
-Versus-
Canara Bank, ARM Branch, 7, Kyd Street, Ground Floor, Kolkata – 700 016
… Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant … Mr. Prabhat Sil Counsel for Respondent … Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti with Ms. Sharmistha Pal
JUDGMENT : 14th February, 2023
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 17A of the RDBFI Act and Rule 22 of DRAT Rules is maintainable to exercise revisional jurisdiction.
Whether the power of superintendence under Section 17A extends to judicial review of Tribunal orders akin to Section 115 CPC.
Whether Rule 22 empowers the Appellate Tribunal to exercise revisional jurisdiction to set aside Tribunal orders.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Manoj Asopa
- respondent
Canara Bank
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · February
- CNR
- 191090005932021
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
6 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court