NIHALBIN IQBAL Vs. CANARA BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26th July, 2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad in M.A. No. 42/03, whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the appellants for recall of the order dated 6th January, 2003 passed in T.A. No. 1387/ 03 has been dismissed.
For appreciating the matter in dispute, the brief facts of the case are necessary to be reiterated, which are as under:
The respondent-Canara Bank, filed the Original Application No. 117/98 for recovery of outstanding dues from the appellants before the DRT, Jabalpur. After setting up of the Tribunal at Allahabad the said case was transferred to DRT, Allahabad and was renumbered as T.A. No. 1387 of 2000. During the pendency of the proceeding a compromise was effected between the Bank and appellants and as such although no compromise petition was filed, learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad by order dated 20th June, 2001 dismissed the case of the respondent-Bank taking cognizance of the compromise itself and an order was passed to the effect that the Bank should return the original documents in its possession to the defendant-appellants as early as possible. The said order of dismissal of the case of the Bank was challenged before this Appellate Tribunal by the Bank in Appeal No. R-54/01 and the same has also been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on 11th October, 2002. The grievance of the appellants were that although orders were passed by the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal to return the original documents to the appellants but the Bank did not return so and for implementation of that order a petition was filed before the Tribunal by the appellants for return of the documents. Some documents had been returned and receipt was given from the side of the appellants and hence by order dated 6th January, 2003 the petition was dismissed on satisfaction and an order was recorded in the following manner:
All papers have been provided. Let it be consigned.
(2.) Then again the appellants filed a petition allegedly under Section 22(2)(h) of the RDDBFI Act read with Rule 5A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules for recall of the order dated 6th January, 2003 on the ground that the Forms 13 and 17 have been returned undated and the Bank should give details regarding the dates, etc. in those forms and also lading bills, etc. in original as mentioned in Annexure No. 26 of the Original Application had not been returned and as such the order dated 6th January, 2003 regarding all papers being returned is erroneous and on mistaken view and hence the order is required to be recalled.
The Bank was always taking the plea that they had no further original documents in their possession. Lading bills, etc. were sent to the foreign Bank and ultimately payments were made directly to the appellant-company by the foreign agency so the question of lying of the bills in original with the respondent Bank does not arise at all. Their further contention was that all the documents, which were in their possession, have been returned. After hearing both the parties at length order was passed on 6th January, 2003 freeing the Bank from the liability of the return of the documents.
(3.) AT the very outset the question was raised before the Tribunal to the effect that the petition filed under Section 22(2)(h) read with Rule 5A is not maintainable. The specific provision for recalling of an order is provided under Section 22(2)(e) and for that purpose formalities regarding payment of fees, etc. are to be made, but no such payment has been made and omnibus Section 22(2)(h) of the RDDBFI Act does not come to play when specific provision is there for recall/review. Learned Tribunal also held that the petition is not maintainable as the same had not been moved after compliance of all formalities as required under Section 22(2)(e) of the RDDBFI Act read with Rule 7 of the Procedure Rules.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.