Case Law Details
Ganpat Pannalal Vs State Bank of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Conclusion: In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court while remanding the case to the Tribunal observed that the Tribunal under Section 22(1)(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 was competent to restore the Securitization Application by imposition of reasonable cost only and not the conditions. Further, it was observed that the discretion whether vested with the administrative authority or a judicial forum must be exercised in a judicious manner and within the four corners of enabling statutory provision.
Facts: In present facts of the case, Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Tribunal) was challenged on the grounds that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to restore the securitization application (SA) subject to payment of reasonable cost and the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to put onerous conditions and therefore course of availing statutory alternate remedy under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 was not required.
The Petitioner submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal in this case have imposed the condition of depositing Rs.02 crores in 4 installments within 2 months out of the outstanding amount and some conditions were also imposed.
The Respondent submitted that there was efficacious statutory alternative remedy available to the Petitioner under Section 18 of the Act of 2002.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
