HILTON PRECISION INSTRUMENTS Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner-company along with its partners Ravinder Sehgal and A.K. Bhatia are Defendants in a civil suit filed by Respondent-Bank against them for recovery of more than Rs. 26 lacs. Originally, this suit was filed in this Court in 1986 but on coming into force of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter called 'the Act') it was transferred to Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter called 'the Trinunal') where the matter is at a stage of recording evidence of the Defendants.

(2.) In the present writ petition, the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 28.10.1997 whereby their application for amendment of written statement has been rejected by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. Before we examine the legality and validity of the impugned order we will deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondent-Bank that in view of the alternative remedy of appeal available to the Petitioners to challenge the impugned order before the appellate Tribunal the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this short ground. In answer to this preliminary objection learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that the impugned order being not final in nature is not appealable before appellate Tribunal under Sec. 20 of the Act in the alternative, the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the statutory remedy of appeal is not a proper remedy inasmuch as the Appellants would be required to deposit 75% of the amount of debt as determined by the Tribunal. Above all, it is urged that by virtue of Sec. 18 of the Act the powers of the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution have been maintained, as such, the present writ petition is maintainable.

(3.) After giving our best considerations to the respective submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and going through the relevant provisions of the Act, we are of the view that the Act is self-contained providing exclusive jurisdiction for Tribunals established under the Act to entertain and decide applications from the banks or financial institutions for recovery of dues payable to them from the appointed day. Chapter-IV of the Act provides procedure of Tribunals and Sec. 20 falling under this Chapter provides an appeal to the appellate Tribunal by any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under the Act except an order made by a Tribunal with consent of the parties. Sec. 34 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall have an overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. Thus, the Act provides special provisions and procedure for determination and recovery of dues payable to the banks and financial institutions. It also provides a right of appeal to the aggrieved party against the order of the Tribunal.