STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SHYAMJI SALES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order of learned single Judge dated 13-10-1999 passed in W.P. No. 2425 of 1999 whereby Judgment in T.A. No. 47 of 1998 dated 21-4-1999 has been set aside.

(2.) Shortly stated, appellant filed Civil Suit for recovery of loan of Rs. 10,30,991.00 against respondents when it was not paid. The Civil Suit was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur for adjudication. By judgment dated 21-4-1999, recovery certificate for the amount of Rs. 10,30,991.00 carrying interest at the rate of 21.5% with quarterly interest along with other reliefs, has been issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Instead of challenging this judgment dated 21-4-1999 before the Appellate Tribunal under S. 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short Act of 1993). The judgment- debtor sought to challenge the same in this Court through writ petition No. 2425 of 1999. Perusal of the Judgment passed in the case discloses that the petitioner/judgment debtor has raised number of objections to the judgment passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Learned single Judge considered these grievances and allowed the writ petition, remanding the case to the Debt Recovery Tribunal permitting the judgment debtor to file written statement against payment of cost of Rs. 10,000,00 to the decree holder. After this judgment, appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 461 of 1999. It was withdrawn on 31 -1 -2000 with liberty to file fresh Letters Patent Appeal if occasion arose. Accordingly, review petition was filed which has been disposed of by order dated 31-1-2000. As such, the decree holder has filed this Letters Patent Appeal in this Court. Learned counsel for parties were heard. Record perused.

(3.) . The main question for consideration is the contention raised by Shri Mehandiratta, learned counsel for decree- holder that this Court should not have exercised jurisdiction under Arts. 226/227 Constitution of India since adequate and efficacious remedy is available to judgment- debtor under S. 20 of the Act of 1993. With a view to support the submission, learned counsel placed reliance on decisions in Sushil Kumar Jaiswalv. Bank of India 1996 ISJ (Banking) 464, Bharat Ispat Udyog v. Presiding Officer, 1998 ISJ (Banking) 11, Sandip Singh Sandhu v. Debt Recovery Tribunal, 1998 ISJ (Banking) 655, Shoes East Limited v. Allahabad Bank, (1998) 2 BC 250, Radha Ravi v. Indian Bank, Alwarpet Branch, (1998) 2 BC 690, M/s. Unified Agro Industries (India) Limited v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi, AIR 2000 Delhi 394), Ganga Narayan Mishra v. State Bank of India, (2001) 1 MPLJ 27 and M/s. M.P. Enterprises v. Punjab National Bank (W.P. No. 1454 of 2000 decided on 26-4-2000). In these decisions, it has been held that remedy under Art. 227 Constitution of India being discretionary, the Court may refuse to grant it where alternative remedy equally efficacious and adequate existed unless there are good grounds to depart from well known practice. Plenary power under Arts. 226/227 Constitution of India is not intended to circumvent statutory procedure and statutory remedies by not invoking the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It cannot be said that the remedy under S. 20 of the Act of 1993 is not an adequate remedy. We are completely in agreement with the view taken by the Courts in the decisions referred to above by learned counsel for the appellant. For arriving at this conclusion, Prasad, J. has referred to decision of Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1, paragraph 15 of which reads as under :