Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation, a Chinese company, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.184/2017. The DRAT had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a common order dated 3.10.2017 passed on I.A. No.1609/2017 and connected interlocutory applications by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bangalore (DRT) in Original Application No.871/2017. The respondent, State Bank of India, had filed the original application before the DRT for recovery of debt. The petitioner sought to quash both the DRAT order and the DRT order. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) against the final order of the DRAT. The court noted that the DRAT had only passed an interlocutory order dismissing the appeal, and the petitioner could await the final order and then appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Alternative Remedy - Articles 226, 227 of Constitution of India - Section 20 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - The petitioner challenged an interlocutory order of DRAT dismissing its appeal against a DRT order. The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 20 of the RDB Act against the final order of DRAT. The court declined to interfere at the interlocutory stage. (Paras 1-4)
B) Debt Recovery - Interlocutory Orders - DRAT - Section 20 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - The DRAT had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against a DRT order on I.A. No.1609/2017. The High Court held that the petitioner must await the final order of DRAT and then avail the statutory remedy under Section 20 of the RDB Act. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in a pending appeal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the final order of the DRAT. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition against interlocutory order of DRAT
- Alternative remedy under Section 20 of RDB Act
- Scope of Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (01) 8
Writ Petition No.53006/2017 (GM-DRT)
H.G.Ramesh, Acting Chief Justice, P.S.Dinesh Kumar, J.
Sri Aditya Sondhi, Senior Advocate for Sri Partha Mandal and Sri T. Ramesh, Advocates for petitioner; Sri K.G.Raghavan, Senior Advocate for Sri Ganapathi Hegde and Sri George Joseph, Advocates for M/s. Dua Assts. for respondent
Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interlocutory order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dismissing an appeal against an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in a debt recovery matter.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 3.11.2017 passed by DRAT, Chennai in Miscellaneous Appeal No.184/2017 and the order dated 3.10.2017 passed by DRT-II, Bangalore in I.A. No.1609/2017 in Original Application No.871/2017.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the DRAT order dismissing its appeal against a DRT order on interlocutory applications.
Previous Decisions
The DRT had passed a common order on I.A. No.1609/2017 and connected interlocutory applications on 3.10.2017. The petitioner appealed to DRAT, which dismissed the appeal on 3.11.2017.
Issues
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an interlocutory order of the DRAT when a statutory appeal under Section 20 of the RDB Act is available.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the DRAT order was erroneous and sought quashing of both the DRAT and DRT orders.
The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 20 of the RDB Act.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) in a pending appeal, as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the final order of the DRAT.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition is presented by a Chinese Company challenging the order dated 3.11.2017 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.184/2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai ('DRAT' for short), dismissing the appeal presented by the petitioner against a common order dated 3.10.2017 passed on I.A.No.1609 of 2017 and connected interlocutory applications by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Karnataka, at Bengaluru ('DRT' for short).
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the final order of the DRAT.
Procedural History
The State Bank of India filed Original Application No.871/2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bangalore for recovery of debt. The DRT passed a common order on I.A. No.1609/2017 and connected interlocutory applications on 3.10.2017. The petitioner, Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation, appealed to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Miscellaneous Appeal No.184/2017, which was dismissed on 3.11.2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, which was heard and reserved for orders on 13.12.2017 and pronounced on 8.1.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: Section 20
