GAUTAM BHALLA Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER I DRT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a purported application under Section 17A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1993') seeking exercise of the powers of this Tribunal under the above said section.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the records available with this application.

(3.) BUT, in my view, this application cannot be entertained and no orders can be passed as requested by the applicant at this stage. The applicant has got an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT concerned under Section 30 of the Act of 1993. The learned Counsel for the applicant, however, contends that though he may be an aggrieved person, he has not been served with a copy of the order and, therefore, he cannot file an appeal. The mere fact that the applicant has not been served with a copy of the order adjourning the matter, cannot be a ground for not filing an appeal to the DRT. The applicant may not be a party to the O.A., but he is the applicant in the objection petition which has been adjourned. Therefore, the applicant could very well get a copy of the order adjourning his petition and move an appeal before the DRT under Section 30 of the Act of 1993. So, on that ground also, this application is not maintainable.