SHAMBHU CHITRA MANDIR Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has called in question the propriety and legal validity of the order passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in Transfer Execution No. 39/2000 and affirmation thereof in Appeal No. 11/2001 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

(2.) IT is not disputed by Mr. Kishore Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, that feeling aggrieved by the order of Recovery Officer the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Tribunal taking recourse to Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The learned counsel impressed upon me to advert to the merits of the case. Prior to that, this Court thinks it apposite to address itself whether there is an alternative remedy or not. In this context, it is apposite to reproduce Section 30 which has been substituted by Act No. 1 of 2000. The said provision reads as under :-

(3.) ON a perusal of the aforesaid provision it is quite vivid that if a person is aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer he may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. In this regard, Section 20 of the Act may be referred. The aforesaid provision reads as under :-