- (1.) This revisional application is one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against Order dated 6-4-2004 passed by the Chairperson of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata in appeal No. DRAT/CAL/17 of 2004.
(2.) The said appeal was preferred by the Corporation Bank who is Opposite Party No. 1 in this case against the order passed by the Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 21-4-2004 in connection with Original Application No. 111 of 2002.
(3.) The facts leading to filing of the instant revisional application may be summed up thus :- i) The Opposite Party i.e. Corporation Bank filed one application before the said Tribunal for recovery of Rs. 11 crores and odd under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the present petitioners and others. ii) The present petitioner filed written statement along with counter claim. iii) While the said application was pending, the present petitioner filed two applications against the Corporation Bank and IDBI with prayer for injunction restraining them from treating the Company as willful defaulter on the basis of guidelines issued by the RBI and also with prayer for injunction restraining the Corporation Bank and IDBI from sending any intimation to the RBI or from taking any other steps to that effect against the Company and also for quashing the decision of treating the Company as willful defaulter. iv) The said applications were filed by the present petitioner mainly on the ground that the Bank took the said decision arbitrarily as no opportunity was given to the present petitioner to show cause or to place their case before any such decision was taken by the Bank. v) The Corporation Bank contested the said application by filing objection stating that they have taken the decision already by which the Company was declared to be a willful defaulter and that decision was taken in the year 2002 as per the circular dated 20-2-1999 of the RBI. The Bank also took the plea that on the basis of intimation the RBI declared the present petitioner as a willful defaulter. The Bank also took the specific plea that as willful defaulter only entitles civil consequence, there is no need of notice or opportunity of hearing to be given to the Company. The Bank also took the plea that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. vi) The IDBI who was defendant No. 6 also contested the said application but took the specific plea that they have not forwarded their views to RBI regarding willful defaulter on the part of the Company. vii) By order dated 21-4-2004. the Tribunal allowed the applications and quashed the decision by the Bank in the year 2002 treating the Company as willful defaulter and the intimation thereunder to that effect sent to the RBI or any other Banks or Financial Institution are bad in law. viii) The Tribunal further passed the order that if the Company's name is appearing in the willful defaulter's list of the RBI or any other Banks or financial institutions on the basis of any intimation so far sent by the Bank and the defendant No. 6, the same deserve to be deleted. ix) Being dissatisfied with the said order of the Tribunal, the Bank preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority in connection with Appeal No. DRAT/CAL/17 of 2004/501. x) By the order impugned, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Tribunal and allowed the appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the said appeal on the ground that the impugned order is not sustainable either in law or facts.;