Case Note & Summary
The case involves a batch of writ petitions filed by United Breweries (Holdings) Limited and others against various banks including State Bank of India, Axis Bank, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, Central Bank of India, Corporation Bank, Federal Bank, and IDBI Bank. The petitioners challenged interlocutory orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in debt recovery proceedings initiated by the banks. The primary legal issue was whether writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution are maintainable against such interlocutory orders when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act) is available. The petitioners argued that the DRT orders were without jurisdiction and that the alternative remedy was not efficacious. The respondents contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a petition under Article 227 against an interlocutory order of DRT when an alternative remedy of appeal exists, unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or grave injustice. The court found that the petitioners had not made out a case for interference and dismissed the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 227 against DRT Orders - Alternative Remedy - The court considered whether writ petitions under Article 227 are maintainable against interlocutory orders of DRT when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is available. Held that the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a petition under Article 227 against an interlocutory order of DRT when an alternative remedy of appeal exists, unless there is a patent lack of jurisdiction or grave injustice. (Paras 1-10) B) Debt Recovery - Interlocutory Orders - Scope of Interference - The court examined the scope of interference with DRT orders under Article 227. Held that the High Court's power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and interference is warranted only if the DRT has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution are maintainable against the interlocutory orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Act is available.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that they were not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The court directed the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy before the Appellate Tribunal.
Law Points
- Maintainability of writ petition under Article 227 against interlocutory orders of DRT
- Alternative remedy under Section 20 of RDDBFI Act
- 1993
- Scope of interference with DRT orders
