- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard Sri Kushal Kant, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 3-9-2002 passed by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad and order dated 30-11-2006 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissing the appeal No. 224 of 2002 filed against the order of the Recovery Officer. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to entertainability of this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the appellate tribunal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the order dated 30-11-2006 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal hence the writ petition need not be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance has been placed on Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court reported in II (2004) Banking Cases 348 (DB), Continental Construction Ltd. and. Ors. v. State Bank of India and Ors. Learned Counsel for the petitioners refuting the preliminary objection of learned Counsel for the respondents contended that no remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners against the order dated 30-11-2006 passed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel submitted that the order dated 30-11-2006 has been passed by the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate power under Section 30 of the Act. He submits that no appeal is contemplated under Section 20 against an order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgments of the apex Court on AIR 1963 SC 1503, Roop Chandra v. State of Punjab. Another judgment relied by him on a judgment of the apex Court in 2002 (2) Bank CLR 272 (SC), Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Anr.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The question which has arisen in this writ petition is as to whether against the appellate order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 30 of the Act, a further appeal can be filed under Section 20 of the Act? For answering this question scheme of the Act has to be looked into, Section 2 (a) defines "appellate Tribunal" as an Appellate Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of Section 8. Section 2 (o) defines "tribunal" means the Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 20 provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Section 20 (1) which is relevant in the present case is quoted below : "20 (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act, may prefer an appeal to an appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter. ";