M/S MANOHAR LAL andPARTY V. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

SAW/763/2016

AI Insights

The case involves two separate appeals filed by M/s. Manohar Lal & Party and Shiv Dayal against orders passed by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. The appellants initially approached the High Court through writ petitions challenging the orders of the Recovery Officer without exhausting the statutory remedy provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The learned Single Judge dismissed these petitions, emphasizing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy. The appellants, represented by Sh. R.P. Garg, argued that the orders were passed without jurisdiction and thus could be challenged directly under Article 226. However, the court found no merit in this argument and dismissed the appeals, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 750995 (HC-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: R P GARG
• Keywords: Equitable jurisdiction; Jurisdiction; Statutory remedy; Writ petition; Intra court appeals
• Section: 14; 30

Judgement Text

"(1) In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.763/2016 M/s. Manohar Lal & Party Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Sawaimadhopur & Ors. & D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.764/2016 Shiv Dayal Vs. Debt Recovery Officer-I, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. Date : 26-5-2016 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Chandra Somani Mr. R.P. Garg Adv., for appellant. Both these intra court appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge Impugned dt.4-5-2016 As reveals from the records that initially when the order came to be passed by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur dt.17-11-2008 M/s. Manohar Lal & Party approached to this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14019/2008 without first exhausting statutory remedy available u/S 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act,1993 (“Act,1993”) and it appears that after the notices came to be served, on preliminary objection being raised that the writ petition preferred at the instance of the appellant assailing order of the Recovery Officer dt.17-11-2008 is not maintainable in the light of statutory remedy available u/S 30 of the Act,1993 & on further order being passed by the Recovery Officer dt.7-1-2015 on the pending application, Shiv Dayal who was also one of the debtor against whom there was a decree of the Tribunal, he too approached to this (2) Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1928/2015 assailing order of the Recovery Officer dt.7-1-2015. When both the two writ petitions, of which we have made a reference, came up before the learned Single Judge, taking note of availability of statutory remedy u/S 30 of the Act,1993, the learned Single Judge was not inclined to exercise its equitable jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India & without going into merits dismissed both the writ petitions under order impugned dt.4-5-2016 with liberty to the appellant to avail remedy available under the law at the same time further liberty was granted for seeking condonation of delay obviously by filing application taking note of Sec.14 of the Limitation Act. Sh. R.P. Garg Adv., appearing for appellants has tried to persuade this Court that although statutory remedy is available u/S 30 of the Act,1993 but if the order passed by the Recovery Officer is without jurisdiction & not in conformity with the provisions of the Act,1993 alternative remedy may not come as a bar in entertaining the writ petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. To satisfy the decree passed by the Tribunal it is only the Recovery Officer to proceed in terms of the procedure prescribed under the Act,1993 and if there is any error in the procedure followed by the recovery officer in passing order or determining liability of borrower/guarantor as the case may, it cannot be observed/held that the order passed by the Recovery Officer was without jurisdiction and since the statutory remedy is available u/S 30 of the Act,1993, the learned Single Judge was of the view that (3) availability of alternative remedy in itself is sufficient not to exercise/invoke jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Taking note of the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error being committed to differ with the view to express in the instant intra court appeals. After we have heard counsel for appellants, we find no substance in either of the appeals. Consequently, both the appeals stands dismissed. Copy of this order be separately placed in each file. (Dinesh Chandra Somani), J. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS/ "