SUSHIL KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main revisional application is taken up for hearing along with the application for interim order in view of the Court's order dated 6-2-1996 Both the matters are disposed of by the following order.

(2.) Heard the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Supriya Ranjan Saha and the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1, Bank of India, Mr. Utpal Bose appearing with the learned Advocate Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee. Mr. Banerjee undertakes to file his Vakalatnama on behalf of the Bank of India in course of this day. Let that undertaking be recorded. Considered the materials on record. The Power filed in Court just now be kept on record.By the instant application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and/or final order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 3rd August, 1995, in Original Application No. 86 of 1994, by which the Tribunal adjudged the petitioners as debtors and further held that the applicant-Bank is entitled to realise a sum of Rs. 10,08,889.73 from the petitioners. This judgment and/or final order has been challenged in the instant revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In this background Mr. Chatterjee contended that the Court can interfere and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. For the purpose of showing that the Court has the power to interfere under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Chatterjee referred to Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (which term will be referred to herein as 'the Act') and also certain decisions, namely, the State of U.P. v. District Judge, Unnao, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1401 : (1984 All LJ 175), Thakur Jugal Kishore v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., reported in AIR 1967 SC 1494 : (1967 Cri LJ 1380) and Raghu Nandan v. W.B. Board of Secondary Education, reported in 1992 (1) CLJ 52 Mr. Chatterjee submitted that those decisions have been referred to for the purpose of showing in principle that in the appropriate cases the High Court can interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.