Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bank of India, a nationalized bank, had granted financial assistance to a limited company, with Ms. Avantika Chauhan as a guarantor. The principal borrower defaulted, and the bank filed Original Application No. 21 of 2006 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, against the borrower and guarantors. The Tribunal passed an ex parte decree on 30.06.2008. Subsequently, the bank discovered that the guarantor Ms. Avantika Chauhan had died before the filing of the original application. The bank then filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and sought to file a fresh original application against the legal representatives of the deceased guarantor. The Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by order dated 28.04.2014, refused to register the fresh original application on the ground that it was not tenable as the bank had already obtained a decree against the deceased guarantor. The bank challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court examined the scope of the Registrar's powers under the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. The court held that the Registrar's function under Rule 5 is purely ministerial, involving scrutiny of the application for compliance with procedural requirements such as number of copies, annexures, and payment of fees. The Registrar cannot adjudicate on the tenability or maintainability of the application, which is a judicial function reserved for the Tribunal. The court set aside the Registrar's order and directed the Registrar to register the fresh original application and place it before the Tribunal for consideration on its own merits. The court clarified that the Tribunal would decide all issues, including the question of maintainability, after hearing the parties.
Headnote
A) Debt Recovery Tribunal - Registrar's Powers - Registration of Original Application - The Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction to refuse registration of an original application on the ground of tenability. The Registrar's role under Rule 5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 is ministerial and limited to scrutiny of the application for compliance with procedural requirements. The question of tenability or maintainability can only be decided by the Tribunal after registration. The impugned order refusing registration was set aside, and the Registrar was directed to register the application and place it before the Tribunal for appropriate orders. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal has the jurisdiction to refuse to register an original application under the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 on the ground of tenability.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Registrar dated 28.04.2014, and directed the Registrar to register the fresh original application and place it before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for appropriate orders. The Tribunal was to decide all issues, including maintainability, after hearing the parties.
Law Points
- Registrar's jurisdiction is ministerial
- not quasi-judicial
- Rule 5 of Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules
- 1993
- Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act
- distinction between registration and adjudication of tenability
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 140
Writ Petition No. 4148 of 2014
Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, A.M. Badar
Mr. A. T. Purohit for petitioner; Mr. Ramesh Darda for respondent No.1; None for respondent Nos.2 and 3
The Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur; Smt. Shila W/o Hansraj Gaikwad; Sh. Sanjay S/o Sambhaji Chouhan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Registrar of Debt Recovery Tribunal refusing to register a fresh original application on the ground of tenability.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner bank sought quashing of the Registrar's order dated 28.04.2014 and a direction to register the fresh original application.
Filing Reason
The Registrar refused to register the fresh original application on the ground that it was not tenable as the bank had already obtained a decree against the deceased guarantor.
Previous Decisions
The Debt Recovery Tribunal had passed an ex parte decree on 30.06.2008 in Original Application No. 21 of 2006. The bank later discovered that the guarantor had died before filing of the original application and sought to file a fresh application against her legal representatives.
Issues
Whether the Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to refuse registration of an original application on the ground of tenability.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner bank argued that the Registrar's role is ministerial and limited to scrutiny under Rule 5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, and cannot decide on tenability.
The respondent Registrar contended that the application was not tenable as the bank had already obtained a decree against the deceased guarantor.
Ratio Decidendi
The Registrar of the Debt Recovery Tribunal exercises only ministerial functions under Rule 5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, and cannot refuse registration of an original application on the ground of tenability. The question of maintainability is a judicial function that must be decided by the Tribunal after registration.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to the jurisdiction of the Registrar to refuse to register an original application under the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 on the ground of tenability.
The Registrar cannot refuse to register an original application on the ground of tenability. The Registrar has to perform the ministerial act of scrutinizing the application under Rule 5 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Registrar is directed to register the fresh original application and place it before the Tribunal for appropriate orders.
Procedural History
The petitioner bank filed Original Application No. 21 of 2006 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, which was decreed ex parte on 30.06.2008. The bank later discovered that one of the guarantors had died before the filing of the original application. The bank filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and sought to file a fresh original application against the legal representatives of the deceased guarantor. The Registrar, by order dated 28.04.2014, refused to register the fresh original application on the ground of tenability. The bank challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 4148 of 2014 before the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur.
Acts & Sections
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: Section 19
- Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993: Rule 5
