Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Deepak Kochhar and Rajeev Kochhar, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 30th January 2006 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal No.1, Mumbai (DRT). The DRT had allowed an application filed by HDFC Bank Ltd. (the respondent bank) to recall a witness, one Mr. S. Venkataraman, for the purpose of further cross-examination. The petitioners were defendants in a recovery proceeding initiated by the bank before the DRT. During the trial, the bank had examined Mr. Venkataraman as its witness. After his examination-in-chief and cross-examination by the petitioners, the bank sought to recall him for further cross-examination on certain documents. The DRT allowed this application, which the petitioners challenged as being without jurisdiction. The petitioners argued that the DRT had no power to recall a witness after cross-examination, and that the order caused prejudice to them. The bank contended that the DRT had inherent powers under Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act) to recall witnesses for effective adjudication. The High Court examined the scope of Section 22, which provides that the DRT is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by principles of natural justice and has powers to regulate its own procedure. The Court held that the DRT has the inherent power to recall a witness if it is necessary for a just decision. The Court found that the DRT's order was within its jurisdiction and did not suffer from any error of law or perversity. The High Court also noted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, but since the petition was pending for a long time, it was considered on merits. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the DRT's order.
Headnote
A) Debt Recovery - Recall of Witness - Power of DRT - Section 22 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - The Debt Recovery Tribunal has inherent power to recall a witness for effective adjudication, even after cross-examination, if it is necessary for just decision of the case. The High Court held that the DRT's order allowing recall of a witness for further cross-examination did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity, and thus no interference was warranted under Article 226. (Paras 5-8) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Tribunal Orders - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The High Court's power under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only if the tribunal's order is without jurisdiction, perverse, or violates principles of natural justice. In this case, the DRT's order was within its discretion and did not warrant interference. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has the jurisdiction or power to recall a witness for cross-examination after the witness has been examined-in-chief and cross-examined, and whether such an order is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the DRT's order allowing recall of the witness was within its jurisdiction and did not suffer from any error of law or perversity. The Court upheld the DRT's inherent power under Section 22 of the RDDBFI Act to recall witnesses for just decision of the case.
Law Points
- Debt Recovery Tribunal has inherent power to recall witnesses for effective adjudication
- Section 22 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act
- 1993
- Principles of natural justice
- No jurisdictional error if order is within tribunal's discretion.
