Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd., had filed an application for sale of immovable property mortgaged in its favour on a pari passu basis with other banks. The Recovery Officer in the pending recovery proceedings agreed with the borrower's submission that a stay existed against other pari passu charge holders and did not permit the Petitioner to proceed. The Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 before the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in January 2011. Pleadings were completed and hearing concluded on 6 May 2011, with the appeal reserved for orders. The date for pronouncement was fixed as 10 June 2011, but the order was not delivered. Subsequently, the Presiding Officer repeatedly adjourned the matter: to 14 July 2011, then to 18 August 2011, then to 23 September 2011, then to 20 October 2011, and finally to 30 November 2011. The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions for early delivery of judgment. The High Court observed that the delay of over six months in pronouncing judgment after hearing was concluded was unjustified and amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction. The Court directed the Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Mumbai to deliver judgment within four weeks from the date of the order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Debts Recovery Tribunal - Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment - Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 30 - Petitioner filed appeal against Recovery Officer's order; hearing concluded on 6 May 2011 and appeal reserved for orders; Presiding Officer repeatedly adjourned pronouncement from June to November 2011 without delivering judgment - Held that such delay is unjustified and amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction; High Court directed DRT to deliver judgment within four weeks (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal can indefinitely delay the pronouncement of judgment after the hearing has been concluded and the appeal reserved for orders.
Final Decision
The High Court directed the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai to deliver judgment in the appeal within four weeks from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Delay in delivery of judgment after hearing concluded is impermissible
- Tribunal must deliver judgment within reasonable time
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked for non-delivery of judgment
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (11) 76
Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2011
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, A.A. Sayed
Mr. Berjis Colabawalla with Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. for the Petitioner; Mr. A.S. Rao with Ms. Neeta V. Masurkar for Respondent 2
International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.
The Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai and Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal to deliver judgment in a pending appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to the Presiding Officer of DRT-I, Mumbai to deliver judgment in the appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Recovery Officer.
Filing Reason
The Presiding Officer of DRT repeatedly adjourned the pronouncement of judgment after hearing was concluded on 6 May 2011, causing delay of over six months.
Previous Decisions
The Recovery Officer had agreed with the borrower's submission that a stay existed against other pari passu charge holders and did not permit the Petitioner to proceed with recovery.
Issues
Whether the Presiding Officer of DRT can indefinitely delay pronouncement of judgment after hearing is concluded and appeal reserved for orders.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner submitted that the hearing was concluded on 6 May 2011 and the appeal reserved for orders, but the Presiding Officer repeatedly adjourned the pronouncement without delivering judgment, causing prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
A Tribunal cannot indefinitely delay the pronouncement of judgment after the hearing is concluded and the matter is reserved for orders; such delay amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction and is unjustified. The High Court can issue directions under Article 226 to ensure timely delivery of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner had filed an application for sale of immovable property that was mortgaged in its favour by the borrower on a pari passu basis with the other banks.
The hearing was concluded on 6 May 2011. When the Appeal was reserved for orders, the date fixed for orders was 10 June 2011. On 10 June 2011, the order was not delivered and another date, 14 July 2011, came to be fixed.
The Petitioner has been constrained to move this Court in view of the delay on the part of the Presiding Officer of the D.R.T. in delivering Judgment and, necessary directions have been sought.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed application for sale of mortgaged property before Recovery Officer; Recovery Officer did not permit recovery due to alleged stay against other banks; Petitioner filed appeal under Section 30 of RDB Act before Presiding Officer of DRT in January 2011; hearing concluded on 6 May 2011; appeal reserved for orders; pronouncement dates repeatedly adjourned from June to November 2011; Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2011 before Bombay High Court on 22 November 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: Section 30
- Constitution of India: Article 226
