Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, A. Abdul Hameed, was a borrower who had taken a loan of Rs.5.00 lakh from Syndicate Bank (respondent No.1). Respondents No.3 and 4 had mortgaged their properties as security for the loan. The bank filed a suit O.S.No.167/1993 before the Civil Court (Sr.Dn.), Mangalore for recovery of Rs.9,77,380/- including principal, interest, cost and other expenses. The suit was decreed on 29th July 1995, and the decree attained finality. Subsequently, the bank filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore, being O.A.No.264/1999, for recovery of the debt. The DRT passed an order on 14.3.2000. Thereafter, a sale proclamation was issued on 21.11.2012 in DCP No.1642 in O.A.No.264/1999. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the DRT order dated 14.3.2000 and the sale proclamation dated 21.11.2012. The petitioner was represented by Sri G.K. Bhat, Advocate, and respondent No.1 was represented by Sri R.K. Prabhu, Advocate. Respondent No.2 was deleted, and respondent No.3 was served. The Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act), which he did not avail. The Court also noted the inordinate delay of about 13 years in challenging the DRT order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not find any merit in the petition and declined to interfere with the DRT order and the sale proclamation.
Headnote
A) Debt Recovery - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Section 30 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - The petitioner, a borrower, challenged the DRT order dated 14.3.2000 and sale proclamation dated 21.11.2012 before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the RDB Act, which he failed to avail. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy and delay. (Paras 1-4) B) Debt Recovery - Delay and Laches - Challenge to DRT Order After 13 Years - The DRT order was passed on 14.3.2000, but the writ petition was filed in 2013. The Court noted the inordinate delay and held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the order after such a long period, especially when the decree had attained finality. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the subsequent sale proclamation is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which he has not availed. Additionally, there is inordinate delay in challenging the DRT order dated 14.3.2000. Hence, no interference is warranted.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- Writ jurisdiction
- Section 30 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act
- 1993
- Delay and laches
