RADHAKRISHAN MAITY Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order No. 6 dated 30th April, 1997 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta, in O.A. No. 71 of 1997, restraining the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 before the Tribunal by way of an ad-interim order of injunction from receiving any money from M/s. Braithwaite & Company Ltd. till the disposal of the application for interim orders. It may be mentioned that the said order was passed on a petition filed on behalf of the Bank for such an order of injunction till the disposal of the pending proceedings before the Tribunal.

(2.) Appearing in support of the application, Mr. Protik Prokash Banerjee, learned Advocate, firstly urged that the impugned order was not sustainable on account of the fact that it was beyond the scope of sub-section(6) of section 19 of The Recovery of Debts Due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the "1993 Act". Mr. Banerjee urged that the scope of sub-section (6) of section 19 of the 1993 Act which empowered the Tribunal to make interim orders is limited to an order, either by way of injunction or stay, to debar the defendant from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of any property and assets belonging to him without the prior permission of the Tribunal.

(3.) Mr. Banerjee urged that the manner in which the ad-interim order had been passed is beyond the scope of the said provisions, since the Tribunal was not entitled to retrain the defendant from realising money from any third party, having regard to the nature of the interim orders which could be passed by the Tribunal.