Nathu K.Patel Vs Recovery Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that as per the provisions of Section 22 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Debt Recovery Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure.
Facts- The writ petition has been instituted challenging the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, to declare the sale proclamation as null and void and challenging the e-auction of the subject property described in the writ proceeding.
The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the subject property of e-auction situated at Tuticorin and therefore, the Recovery Officer has not jurisdiction to conduct auction and on that ground the present writ petition is to be considered.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Tushar P.Shah Vs. International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited it is held that the prime object of the establishment of Debts Recovery Tribunal is to provide expeditious adjudication of recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions, therefore, Section 22 of the RDDB & FI Act has clothed the Tribunal with the power to regulate its own procedure guided by the principles of natural justice and is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure. It is no doubt true that there is no bar for the Tribunal to take recourse to the procedure laid down by the Code, however, as per the provisions of Section 22 of the RDDB & FI Act it is not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code and therefore the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner even on this count must fail and the decision in case of Mohit Bhargava cited by the petitioner does not further the case of the petitioner.
