BANWARILAL MURALILAL Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING felt aggrieved by the order dated 2.8.2001 (Annexure -1) made by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 49 of 1996 rejecting the prayer to set aside the ex parte decree, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing of the same. The petitioner has also challenged the vires of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the scheme made thereunder.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that although the impugned order of the learned Presiding Officer is appealable under Section 20 of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal, he has not followed the alternative remedy as the vires of the Act is under challenge and the remedy by way of appeal is not effective and otherwise onerous inasmuch as he has to deposit 75% of the decretal amount. In this connection, Shri Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 197 (M. G. Abrol v. Shantilal Chhotelal and Co.) and AIR 1968 SC 13 (Collector of Customs and Excise, Cochin v. A. S. Bava). Shri N. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the decree -holder opposite party No. 1, submits that the writ petition should riot be entertained as alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal is available under the Act.

(3.) IN view of the fact that the constitutional validity of the Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court, challenge of the petitioner with regard to validity of the Act before us no more subsists.