The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Debt Recovery Tribunal order on the availability of statutory appeal, while clarifying that parties remain free to compromise the debt.
Writ application disposed; liberty granted to petitioners to prefer statutory appeal; no impediment to compromise arrangement.
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.18664 of 2017
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhanendra Chaubey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kumar Priya Ranjan,Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
2 26-08-2019
learned counsel for the Bank.
The petitioners in the present case has challenged the judgment dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bihar at Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 145 of 2017.
By the impugned judgment the learned Tribunal has allowed the application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1993’) filed by the Bank. A sum of Rs. 19,60,024/together with interest pendentilite and future at the rate of 10 % per annum simple from 01.12.2016 till realization of the entire
Patna High Court CWJC No.18664 of 2017(2) dt.26-08-2019 2/4
sum has been adjudged recoverable from the petitioners/certificate debtor.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one of the submissions of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that prior to filing of the original application the Bank had initiated a certificate case bearing No. 129 of 2016-17 before the Certificate officer in which a sum of Rs. 13,53,985/- has been claimed by the Bank but when the original application was preferred, the Bank wrongly claimed a sum of Rs. 19,60,024/by exaggerating the rate of interest. Further a sum, of Rs. 4,00,000/- which was received by the Bank on account of subsidy as back as on 27.01.2012 had not been duly accounted for. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the observation of the Tribunal at one stage saying that “looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, the defendants deserve some leniency in the rate of interest”.
Learned counsel submits that recently the Bank sent a letter to the petitioners wherein they have shown their inclination to compromise the matter taking note of the amount for which the certificate proceeding was initiated.
Learned counsel for the Bank has opposed this application as according to him, the judgment under challenge is
Patna High Court CWJC No.18664 of 2017(2) dt.26-08-2019 3/4
appealable in terms of Section 20 of the Act of 1993 and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Styawati Tandon & Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 ( paragraph 43), there is no reason as to why a writ application be entertained.
It is submitted that so far as recently issued letter to the petitioners is concerned, that is an independent exercise and if the Bank has shown its willingness to compromise the matter taking note of the certificate amount, that will be an independent exercise to be taken and the petitioners if so advised may enter into a compromise on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the parties.
Learned counsel submits that this much may be assured to the Court that any denial by this Court to entertain this writ application on the ground of their being any alternative remedy of appeal, would not stop on-going exercise and if the matter may be settled on compromise there will be no impediment in the same.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek their remedy against the impugned judgment in statutory appeal to be preferred before the Appellate Tribunal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18664 of 2017(2) dt.26-08-2019 4/4
In case such an appeal is preferred within a period of 30 days from today, the same will be considered keeping in view the period spent by the petitioners before this court.
As a matter of independent action, it is made clear that the order of this Court relegating the petitioners to alternative remedy shall not come in the way of the Bank and the petitioners in entering into compromise.
The writ application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
avin/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ application challenging a Tribunal order in a debt recovery case should be entertained when a statutory appeal is available.
Whether the High Court's order directing parties to avail the statutory appeal impedes their ability to compromise the debt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United Bank of India Vs. Styawati Tandon & Ors.Referred¶23
United Bank of India Vs. Styawati Tandon & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 110 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Maa Laxmi Enterprises
Umesh Prasad
Panjab National Bank
Punjab National Bank
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
