Published on: November 15, 2023 at 12:20 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: T.P. Vishnu Kumar V. Canara Bank (2013)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the Banking institution cannot approach Civil Court and High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of recovery of dues. It is held that High Court’s jurisdiction can only be invoked if any statutory violation resulting in prejudice to the party or where such proceedings or action is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair. It is held that Bank can only approach Debt Recovery Tribunals under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery.
9. Powers, which were conferred on the civil court, now stand conferred on a Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act thereby it can deal with applications from banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. We are of the view that when a specific remedy is made available to the aggrieved party under Section 20 of the Act, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was not justified in interfering with the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
11. A writ petition was preferred against the rejection of applications and the same were entertained by the learned Single Judge and decided on merits and which in our view is impermissible while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the correctness or otherwise of each and every interim order passed by the Tribunal is going to be tested in a writ court, it will only defeat the object and purpose of establishing such Tribunal. We have already noticed that due to the intervention of the writ court, the matter got delayed for four years defeating the very purpose and object of the Act. We, therefore, find no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
