Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Neuropsychiatry and Critical Care Hospital Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated June 3, 2015, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Chennai. The DRAT had rejected the petitioner's application for reception of additional evidence, which was filed under Section 22(h) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The DRAT reasoned that since the appeal was under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), and not under the 1993 Act, the application could not be maintained. The High Court observed that the DRAT's attention was not drawn to the settled legal principle that wrong mentioning of a provision is not material if the litigant is otherwise entitled to relief. The court held that merely because the petitioner mentioned the wrong caption in the application, it cannot be a ground for rejection, as it does not take away the jurisdiction of the court if otherwise vested. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the DRAT to consider the application for additional evidence on its merits, in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reception of Additional Evidence - Wrong Mention of Provision - The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal erred in rejecting an application for additional evidence solely because it was filed under Section 22(h) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, instead of under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The High Court held that wrong mentioning of a provision is not fatal if the litigant is otherwise entitled to relief and the court has jurisdiction. (Paras 2-4) B) Banking Law - Jurisdiction of DRAT - Section 22(h) of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - The DRAT has jurisdiction to entertain applications for additional evidence in appeals under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as the procedural provisions of the 1993 Act apply. The mere wrong captioning of the application does not oust jurisdiction. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application for reception of additional evidence can be rejected solely on the ground that it was filed under a wrong provision of law, when the court otherwise has jurisdiction to entertain it.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated June 3, 2015, and directed the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal to consider the application for additional evidence on its merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Wrong mentioning of provision is not material if litigant is otherwise entitled to relief
- Technicality cannot oust jurisdiction if otherwise vested
- Section 22(h) of Recovery of Debts Act
- 1993 applies to appeals under SARFAESI Act
- 2002
