Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gangaram Biseshwar Agrawal, was defendant No. 2 in three recovery suits filed by Canara Bank, Union Bank of India, and State Bank of India against Shri Hari Ganga Cement Ltd and others. The suits were transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Nagpur, and numbered as OA 172/2001, OA 210/2001, and OA 173/2001. On 9/7/2004, the DRT dismissed the petitioner's interlocutory applications and simultaneously allowed the original applications. The petitioner filed review applications on 8/9/2004, which were dismissed on 6/7/2005. The petitioner then filed three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the DRT's orders. The respondent banks raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The court noted that the final arguments of the banks were heard on 24/9/2003, and the matter was adjourned for the defendants' arguments from 21/1/2004 to 6/7/2004. On 6/7/2004, the petitioner filed interlocutory applications seeking production of documents, which were dismissed on 9/7/2004, and the main case was also decided. The court held that since the petitioner had already availed the remedy of review and failed, and an appeal remedy was available, the writ petitions were not maintainable. The court dismissed all three writ petitions with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Writ Jurisdiction - Availability of statutory appeal under Section 20 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Petitioner challenged DRT order allowing original applications after dismissing interlocutory applications - Held that writ petition is not maintainable when alternative remedy of appeal is available and petitioner has already availed review remedy which was dismissed (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Final Decision
All three writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Exhaustion of statutory remedies
- Writ jurisdiction not to be exercised when alternative remedy available
- Section 20 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act
- 1993
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (12) 103
Writ Petition Nos.4007, 4008 of 2005 & Writ Petition No.4646 of 2004
Mr. V.V. Bhangde for Petitioner; Mrs. M. Naik for Canara Bank; Mr. C.S. Samudra for Union Bank of India; Mr. A. Kumar for State Bank of India
Gangaram Biseshwar Agrawal
Canara Bank, Union Bank of India, State Bank of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) allowing original applications for recovery of debts.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash DRT orders dated 9/7/2004 allowing original applications and order dated 6/7/2005 dismissing review applications.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that DRT fixed only interlocutory applications for hearing on 9/7/2004 but after dismissing them, also considered and allowed the main original applications without giving him an opportunity to argue the main case.
Previous Decisions
DRT dismissed interlocutory applications and allowed original applications on 9/7/2004. Review applications filed on 8/9/2004 were dismissed on 6/7/2005.
Issues
Whether the writ petitions are maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is available.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that DRT acted illegally by hearing the main case after dismissing interlocutory applications without giving him a chance to argue the main case.
Respondent banks raised preliminary objection that petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and hence writ petitions are not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
When a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner having already availed the remedy of review and failed, the proper remedy is to file an appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Judgment Excerpts
The three Banks mentioned above have raised preliminary objection by pointing out that the remedy of filing appeals before Appellate Tribunal i.e. DRAT is available to the petitioners.
The facts in the matter are more or less identical.
Procedural History
Canara Bank filed Special Civil Suit 186/1996, Union Bank of India filed Special Civil Suit 150/1996, and State Bank of India filed Special Civil Suit 222/1996 against Shri Hari Ganga Cement Ltd and others. These suits were transferred to DRT, Nagpur and numbered as OA 172/2001, OA 210/2001, and OA 173/2001 respectively. On 9/7/2004, DRT dismissed interlocutory applications and allowed the original applications. Petitioner filed review applications on 8/9/2004, which were dismissed on 6/7/2005. Petitioner then filed three writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: Section 20
- Constitution of India: Article 226
