SANJOS JEWELLERS Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the Full Bench is whether the writ Petition challenging the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which is situate within the territorial limits of this Court, while the original Tribunal is situate in another State is maintainable and whether the decision in Bhanu Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Andhra Bank , 2005 (5) CTC 721: 2006 (2) BC 191 DB, is correct.

(2.) THE facts need not be set out in detail. But briefly the background of the case is this: THE respondents issued a notice to the petitioner under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("sarfaesi Act" in short)read with Rule 3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 on 30. 8. 2004. This was followed by a notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. THE proceedings were challenged by the petitioners under Section 17 (1) of the sarfaesi Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore . But the pe titioner failed. THEy filed an Appeal under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. This was also dismissed on 22. 12. 2006. Against this order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, referred to (i) U. P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow v. State of U. P. , AIR 1995 SC 2148 (ii) M/s. Kusum Ingots and alloys Ltd. v. Union of India , 2004 (3) CTC 365 : 2004 AIR SCW 2766 (iii) M/s. Bhanu Constructions pvt. Ltd. v. Andhra Bank , 2005 (5) CTC 721: 2006 (2) BC 191 DB (cited supra) (iv) Ex. Rect. (MP) A. Madurai Veeran v. Union of India and others , 2006 (1)CTC 732 (v) THE Commissioner of Central Excise v. Sun Pharmaceuticals industries Ltd. , and submitted that what can be culled out from all these decisions is that the Writ Petition will be maintainable before the Court within whose jurisdiction a part of cause of action arose. THE learned counsel submitted that the order of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to be a trivial cause of action. THE learned counsel also submitted that when the Original Authority is constituted at one place and the Appellate authority in an other, the Writ Petition could be maintained in either of the Courts which had jurisdiction over the two Tribunals since the order of the original authority merges with that of the Appellate Authority. He also submitted that the decision reported in Bhanu Constructions case was given on the facts of that case where the conduct of the parties came in for severe criticism and it was found that they had done "forum shopping". THE learned counsel also submitted that if one were to disallow the Writ Petition filed in the High court where the Appellate Tribunal is situate then Article 226 (2) of the constitution of India will become otiose. THE learned counsel also pointed out the comparison between the words used in SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Fina ncial Institutions Act, 1993, to show that anyone challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal could file it where the appellate Tribunal is situate.