The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order directing a warrant of arrest under the DRT Act. The court held that an alternative remedy exists under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, and therefore declined to entertain the application.
The writ application stands disposed of as the alternative remedy is available.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 460 of 2012
1. Anil Kumar Gupta, S/o Late B.N. Gupta, R/o Near Forest Colony, Polytechnic Road, Dhanbad, P.O. + P.S.Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
2. Deepak Kumar Gupta, S/o Late B.N. Gupta, R/o Near Forest Colony, Polytechnic Road, Dhanbad, P.O. + P.S.Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand. … … Petitioners
Versus
1. State Bank of India through its Chairman, Zonal Office, Kutchery Road, P.O.- Kutchery, P.S.- Sadar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Dhanbad Branch, Bank More, P.O.- Dhanbad, P.S.- Bank More, District- Dhanbad, Jharkhand … … Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioners : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate -------
03/17.07.2019 Heard Ms. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the learned Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, by which a direction has been given to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioners. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing of the warrant of arrest dated 23.11.2011 issued against the petitioners.
In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of approaching the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It also appears that almost 8 years have passed since the warrant of arrest has issued against the petitioners.
However, in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application which accordingly stands disposed of.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Alok/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can entertain an application challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal where an alternative remedy exists.
Whether the passage of nearly eight years since the issuance of an arrest warrant is sufficient to override the availability of an alternative remedy.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar Gupta
Deepak Kumar Gupta
State Bank of India
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
