This Single Judge Writ Petition challenged an order entrusting the charge of DRT-2, Ernakulam to the Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Bangalore. The Court held that the remedy under Section 4(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 does not preclude granting such charge to another DRT established under the same Act.
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 KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.2966 OF 2021(U)
PETITIONERS:
1 M/S.KERALA FASHION JEWELLERY D.NO PP/VI,656, MANJERI ROAD, PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM - 676 521, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER O.K BIJU 4/43, THEKKARA OLARI OLLUR, TRISSUR - 680 306.
8 MRS. KOCHU THRESSIA, W/O. OLARI KOCHUVAREED KOCHUVARUNNI , 4/43, THEKKARA OLARI, OLLUR, TRISSUR - 680 306 BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SHRI.SATHEESH V.T. SMT.MANJARI G.B. SRI.C.S.ULLAS SMT.RANI MADHU
W.P.(C) No.2966/2021
2
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICE), NEW DELHI 110 001
3 Ms.S.V.GOURAMMA THE PRESIDING OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2 BANGALURU-560057.
4 M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE 27 BKC, C 27, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI 400 051 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
4 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, BKC, C 27, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI - 400 051.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.P VIJAYA KUMAR, ASG. SRI.NAGRAJ NARAYAN – R4& R5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.2966/2021
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of February 2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners
have made the following prayers in the instant writ petition.
C. Issue a Writ of Mandamus to the 1st respondent to entrust the additional charge of Debt Recovery Tribunal-2 Ernakulam to any other Presiding Officer or Judicial member of any other Tribunal established and constituted under any other law for the time being in force other than the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 functioning under the
W.P.(C) No.2966/2021 4
Government of India in Ernakulam invoking section 4(2)(a) and (b) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 till joining of a regular incumbent as presiding officer Debt Recovery Tribunal-2 Ernakulam.
W.P.(C) No.2966/2021 5
Section 4 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the charge could have been given to another DRT. With this, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the legislature has consciously deleted this clause by substituting the same with amended provisions of sub section 2 of Section 4 which prescribes that charge of DRT can be given to Presiding Officer of any other Tribunal established under any other law for the time being in force.
its substitution by Act 44 of 2016, sub section 2 of Section 4 stood as under:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the Central Government may authorise the Presiding Officer of one Tribunal to discharge also the functions of the Presiding Officer of another Tribunal”.
This clause is deleted by substituting the following as sub section 2 of Section 4 of the said Act.
“ 4. Composition of Tribunal. - (1) ….
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the Central Government may-
(a) authorise the Presiding Officer of any other Tribunal established under any other law for the time being in force to discharge the function of the
W.P.(C) No.2966/2021 6
Presiding Officer of a Debt Recovery Tribunal under this Act in addition to his being the Presiding Officer of that Tribunal”.
Section 4 empowers the Government to authorise the Presiding Officer of any other Tribunal established under any other law for the time being in force to discharge the function of Presiding Officer of a DRT under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, in addition to his own functions.
“Tribunal means the Tribunal established under
sub-section(1) of section 3”.
given meaning. The golden rule is to adopt to the ordinary meaning of the words used and to the grammatical construction unless the same leads to manifest absurdity. The inconvenience however great would be of little consequence. Similarly, it is also well established that such interpretation as would reduce the
W.P.(C) No.2966/2021
7
legislation to futility needs to be avoided.
In the case in hand, the term 'Tribunal' is defined to mean that the Tribunal established under sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The Central Government is empowered to establish one or more Tribunal to be known as DRT by notification for exercising the jurisdiction, power and authority conferred on such Tribunal under the said Act. If the meaning of the word 'Tribunal' as defined by this Act is kept in mind, then it is clear that the Government can entrust the charge of one DRT to any other DRT so also to other Tribunals established under any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of sub section 2 of Section 4 cannot be read to exclude entrustment of powers of one DRT with another DRT.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE
smp
W.P.(C) No.2966/2021
8
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO. F. NO 7/1/2019-DRT DATED 04-01-2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A NO. 163/2021 FILED BY THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS TO ADVANCE THE S.A 372 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF I.A NO. 154/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR REOPENING THE HEARING IN SA
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
True Copy
P.S to Judge
smp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Central Government can entrust the charge of a Debt Recovery Tribunal at Ernakulam to the Presiding Officer of another Debt Recovery Tribunal established under the same Act instead of a Tr
Whether the amended Section 4(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 excludes entrustment of powers of one DRT to another DRT.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Kerala Fashion Jewellery
Union of India
Debts Recovery Tribunal-2 (Ernakulam & Lakshadweep)
Ms. S.V. Gouramma
M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
