Ram Chandra Mahto V. The Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Finance (Bankers), New Delhi and State Bank of India and The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400 021 and State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Barauni, Industrial Area, P.O. Tilrath, P.S. Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai, through its Branch Manager

CWJC/5633/2010

AI Insights

The case involves Ram Chandra Mahto, the petitioner, who challenged an order from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) dated 13.11.2009, which rejected his review petition concerning an earlier DRT order dated 21.01.2002. The petitioner did not appeal the original order within the stipulated time, which was also appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The High Court of Patna, referencing Supreme Court precedents, decided not to interfere with the DRT's decision, suggesting that the petitioner should have initially approached the statutory authorities and only then sought judicial review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803426 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: United Bank of India Vs. Stayawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110], Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabil Dass Agrawal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]
• Laws Referred To: Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KANAK VERMA; KAUSHLENDRA KUMAR SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANIK VED SEN; SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE
• Keywords: Appealable order; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Debts Recovery Tribunal; Judicial review; Review petition
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5633 of 2010 ====================================================== Ram Chandra Mahto, S/O Late Mukho Mahto, R/O Vill. and P.O. Jokia, P.S. Bhagwanpur, Sub Division Teghra, Distt.- Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Finance (Bankers), New Delhi 2. The State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai, through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director 3. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400 021 4. State Bank of India, Industrial Estate Branch, Barauni, Industrial Area, P.O. Tilrath, P.S. Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai, through its Branch Manager .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manik Ved Sen Mr.Subhash Chandra Bose For the Respondent no.1 : Mrs.Kanak Verma, C.G.C. For the Respondent nos.2to4: Mr.Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 09-03-2015 Heard the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure-7) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, For the State of Bihar, Patna, whereby the petition for review filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking review of earlier order dated 21.01.2002 passed in PT Case No.553 of 1998 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna has been rejected. Indisputably, the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure-7) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna is appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( in short Act, 1993). It is further apparent that against the original order dated 21.01.2002 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna no appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 20 of the Act, 1993, though that order was also appealable. This Court is of the considered opinion that the issues Patna High Court CWJC No.5633 of 2010 (3) dt.09-03-2015 2 of facts must be raised by the parties at the first instance before the statutory authorities and that must be gone into by such authorities and only thereafter the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be properly and effectively exercised. For the reasons recorded above as also in view of the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Stayawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and the recent judicial pronouncement in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabil Dass Agrawal [(2014) 1 SCC 603], this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, if so advised, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the Act, 1993. If such an appeal is filed on behalf of the petitioner and it is found that it has become barred by limitation and if any petition is filed for condonation of delay, then the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall take into consideration that under a bonafide legal advise the present writ petition was filed before this Court on 31.03.2010 and that remained pending before this Court till date and only thereafter it shall pass appropriate order(s) in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The interim order of status quo passed on 01.04.2010 by a Bench of this Court stands vacated. Arvind/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) U "