The court permitted the withdrawal of two writ petitions allowing petitioners to move the Debt Recovery Tribunal for review of an order, noting the statutory appeal is a separate remedy and observations on merits were reserved.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11628 of 2014
====================================================== 1. Rajesh Kumar 2. Prabhat Kumar Both sons of late Shashi Ranjan @ Shashi Ranjan Sahu, resident of 197B Shrikrishnapuri, P.S. S.K.Puri, Town and District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11432 of 2014
====================================================== Kartik Kumar son of Late Shashi Ranjan, Resident of 197-B, Sri Krishnapuri, P.S.- S.K. Puri, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through Secretary of Finance Department of Banking, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The Debts Revoery Tribunal, Patna, East Boring Canal Road, Patna, through its Registrar. 3. Punjab National Bank, through its Chairman, Bhikhaji Cama Place, Africa Avenue, New Delhi 4. Punjab Nation Bank, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt. through its Branch Manager .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.11628 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. K.D.Chatterjee, Sr.Adv.
.... .... Petitioner/s
.... .... Respondent/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.11628 of 2014 (2) dt.14-07-2014
2
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan (In CWJC No.11432 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manik Vedsan, Adv. For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. Gautam Sinha, Adv. For respondents no.3 & 4: Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh No.1, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
After some argument learned counsel for the petitioners in both these cases have sought permission to withdraw both these applications in order to avail remedy of review before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).
2 14-07-2014
Learned Counsel for the respondents have no objection to such prayer because they are of the view that if the petitioners can at all make out a case for review they can definitely move the Tribunal even without taking leave of this Court.
In the considered opinion of this Court the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is both appealable in terms of section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as also capable of being reviewed in terms of section 22(2)(e) of the Act but then the province of appeal and the scope of review are totally different.
Thus, when this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order primarily because the petitioners have not exhausted the statutory alternative remedy and the learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.11628 of 2014 (2) dt.14-07-2014
3
for the petitioners have sought leave to move again the Tribunal by way of review, all that can be said is that the Tribunal would exercise its own jurisdiction in the matter of review only in the manner as is circumscribed by the provisions of the law including the Act.
It, however, goes without saying that if the petitioners seek condonation of any delay in filing of the review application, partly on account of pendency of their writ applications, the same will be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.
Let it be made clear that as the learned counsel for the petitioners have sought permission to withdraw this application for moving the Tribunal again by way of review, anything said in this order would not be construed as an opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.
With the aforementioned observations, both these applications are permitted to be withdrawn.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)
surendra/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether permission to withdraw writ applications to avail the remedy of review before the Debt Recovery Tribunal should be granted.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajesh Kumar and Prabhat Kumar
Punjab National Bank
The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bihar
Bharat Auto Traders
Kartik Kumar
Union of India
Mihir Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
