SANCHETI YARNS LIMITED Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged by way of this petition order dated 2 1/09/2001 in Original Application No. 95/1996 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad.

(2.) Bank of India, Gopipura Branch, Surat is the applicant in Original Application No. 95/1996 filed before the Tribunal and in the said proceedings, on 15th November, 1997, a written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner herein. It is an admitted position that till 23rd January, 2001, except for exchange of pleadings the matter before the Tribunal had not proceeded any further. On 23/01/2001, vide Exh. A/34, the Bank moved an amendment application whereby it was prayed on behalf of the Bank that the word 'private' appearing in the name of the petitioner, wherever appearing in the Original Application and the record and proceedings, may be permitted to be deleted and the Original Application may be permitted to be further amended by adding one paragraph as reproduced in the amendment application. The petitioner herein opposed the amendment application by filing the affidavit-in-reply dated Nil February, 2001. On 21/09/2001, after hearing the learned advocates for both the sides, the Tribunal permitted the Bank to amend the Original Application and directed that the respondents may file written statement and/or counter affidavit to the amended plaint before the next date of hearing. The next date of hearing was originally fixed on 15/10/2001 and, admittedly, till date, the matter has not progressed any further. Today, during the course of hearing it was stated that the next date of hearing is fixed on 5th August, 2002.

(3.) Mr. Utpal Panchal appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is an interlocutory order and hence is not an order within the meaning of Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and therefore, it was contended that the said order was not appealable and for this purpose an inherent indication is available in Section 21 which requires that 75% of the amount due as determined by the Tribunal is payable where an appeal is preferred and this is a mandatory condition. It was submitted that in these circumstances, the Act does not envisage an appeal against an interlocutory order and hence, there was no occasion to approach the Appellate Authority and the petitioner had no alternative statutory remedy; that the bar of jurisdiction of a Court or any other authority stipulated in Section 18 of the Act was subject to the exception of exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the amendment, which was directed by the Tribunal, could not be stated to be an amendment as understood, but it was a case of change of the cause title of the suit i.e. change of the defendant and hence the same was not permissible. It was further submitted that the bar of limitation would apply to filing of a suit against the defendant and in light of the same the amendment could not have been allowed which amounted to giving a go bye to the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Act.