MANWANI INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for quashment of order dated 11-7-2000, Annexure-P-5, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 herein, and order dated 2-11-2000, Annexure-P-9, passed by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the respondent No. 3 herein.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent No. 2 instituted Original Application No. 157/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') for recovery of Rs. 5,07,87,915. 57 P. After the application was presented before the Tribunal it issued notice to the present petitioners, the defendants therein, to appear on 4-5-2000. The petitioners appeared on the said date and filed an application for grant of time to file their reply/written statement. The Tribunal allowed time till 11-7-2000. While granting time the Tribunal made it clear by observing that no further adjournment shall be granted and the right of defence would be closed if the reply/written statement was not filed by the said date. As averred in the writ petition during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal the petitioners approached the Bank at various levels and eventually submitted a proposal for one time settlement on 10-7-2000 for Rupees one crore and one lac only. On 11-7-2000 before the Tribunal the petitioner sought further time for filing of reply. The Tribunal took note of its previous order and observed that despite several opportunities, the defendants had not filed their reply/counteraffidavits as required under Rule 12 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'rules'), and therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 12 (4) of the Rules read with Regulation 21 of the DRT Regulations of Practice, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), the Tribunal may proceed forthwith to pass an order on the Application as it thinks fit. Thus, the case was reserved for judgment. At that juncture the petitioner prayed for making some oral submissions which was allowed and the case was fixed to 18-7-2000. As setforth in the writ petition the aforesaid order was assailed in W. P. No. 4218/2000. This Court by order dated 17-7-2000 declined to interfere on the ground that an appeal lay to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter after referred to 'appellate Tribunal' ). However, while dismissing the case this Court directed that the Tribunal shall postpone the pronouncement of judgment till 26-7-2000. Within the time provided by this Court the petitioners, the defendants before the Tribunal, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal forming the subject-matter of Appeal No. 102/2000. The Tribunal came to held that the aim and object of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are for speedy and expeditious disposal of the cases filed by the banks or financial institutions for recovery of their dues and as the Tribunal had granted two months time to file the written statement he was justified in rejecting the application for grant of time filed by the appellants therein. The Appellate Tribunal further observed that as per the Rules the written statement/reply is to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons. On the basis of the aforesaid findings the Tribunal concluded that the defendants did not deserve any further indulgence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs. 2000/ -.

(3.) ASSAILING the aforesaid order it is averred in the writ petition that the order passed by the Tribunal, Jabalpur as well as by the Appellate Tribunal are vulnerable inasmuch as both the authorities have not kept the concept of natural justice in view and have given undue emphasis on the concept of speedy and expeditious disposal of the case.