LAWS(MPH)-2002-4-59

A B JOGLEKAR Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

Decided On April 01, 2002
A.B.JOGLEKAR Appellant
V/S
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are challenging the judgment passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in T. A. No. 917/98 decided on 13th July, 2000 as per Annexure P/4.

(2.) AN application was filed for setting aside the ex parte judgment which application was dismissed by Debts Recovery Tribunal on 15th October, 2001 as per order Annexure P/5.

(3.) IT is the consistent view taken by this Court that in the judgment passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, interference has not to be ordinarily made in the writ jurisdiction of this Court, This Court has consistently followed the decision of Punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan and Ors. , (2001) 6 SCC 569, in which it was emphasized by their Lordships that the Recovery Act has been enacted with a view to provide special procedure for recovery of debts due to the Banks and Financial Institutions, There is a hirarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed cither by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said provisions of the constitution. A Division Bench of this Court in State Bank of India v. Shri Shyamji Sales and Ors. , 2002 (1) M. P. L. J. 221, following the decision of Punjab National Bank v. O. C. Krishnan, (supra) has held that ordinarily when an appeal is provided, no interference should be made under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.