STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, the State Bank of India, Industrial Area Branch, Nacharam, filed an application O.A. Diary No.432/95 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore (camp at Hyderabad) for recovery of a debt under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to, as the Act). Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act prescribed a format of the application containing the particulars to be given by the applicant and also the details of the requisite documents to be enclosed along with the application. The petitioner in compliance with this rule filed an application in the prescribed format giving all the details and also enclosing the necessary documents including the statement of account based on which the claim is made by the petitioner. The Registry of the Debts Recovery Tribunal raised an objection without giving any details stating that the petitioner should give the break up figures of the principal, interest and the service charges, even though all these particulars were available in the statement of account enclosed to the application filed by the petitioner. On the basis of the request made by the petitioner to post the matter before the Court the same was posted before the Tribunal on 28-6-95 in the camp Court at Hyderabad. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal relying upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in D.S. Gowda vs. M/s. Corporation Bank insisted that the petitioner should give the necessary particulars called for by the Registry for numbering the petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that even though it was brought to the notice of theTribunal that the decision reported in D.S. Gowda vs. M/s. Corporation Bank has been set aside by the Supreme Court in C.A. 4214/82 vide Corporation Bank and another vs. D.S. Gowda2 the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal insisted that under sub-section (4) of the Sec.19 of the Act the Tribunal has got the power to call for the particulars and accordingly returned the application to the petitioner for compliance. Aggrieved by the same this writ petition is filed.

(3.) Since this writ petition is filed on the basis of the office objection raised by the Tribunal it is not necessary to order notice to the respondent. Therefore this matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. As mentioned already the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal relied upon D.S. Gowda's case and also sub section (4) of Sec.19 of the Act for furnishing the particulars, by the petitioner. The ratio laid down in D.S. Gowda's case is: