Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SASIKALA vs INDIAN BANK on 1 October 2024
**IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI**
**Dated the 1<sup>st</sup> day of October, 2024**
**PRESENT: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, KOLKATTA**
**(Holding Addl. Charge of DRAT, Chennai)**
**AIR 1449/2023**
**(arising out of order passed by Registrar in Appeal Dy.No.1471/2023 in IA Dy.No.55/2023 in RP No.822/2019 in TRC No.458/2019 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore)**
Between
Sasikala
D/o late Shri V. Arumugam,
D.No.01, Perumal Koil Street,
Sekkadipatti Village,
Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk,
Salem District.
...Appellant
And
1. 1. The Authorised Officer,
Indian Bank, Salem,
Represented by its Asset
Recovery Management
Branch,
No.31 Variety Hall Road,
Coimbatore.
2. 2. Shri S. S. Selvakumar
S/o M. Sengodan,
No.68/91 & 92 –
Ragavanandam Nagar,
Cauveri RS (Post), Erode,
Erode District.
3. 3. M/s Saravana Theatre,
Periakrishnapuram, P.O.,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
4. 4. Smt. Ranganayagi,
W/o Late. Ramakrishnan
No.189, Main Veethi ,
Periakrishnapuam P.O.
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
1. 5. Shri Sekar,
S/o Late Ramakrishnan,
No.189, Main Veethi ,
Periakrishnapuram P.O.
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
2. 6. Shri Sankar,
S/o Late Ramakrishnan,
No.189, Main Veethi ,
Periakrishnapuram P.O.
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
3. 7. Smt. Santhi, W/o Gopal,
D/o Late Ramakrishnan
No.428, Mariappan Nagar,
Kamaraj Nagar Colony
Post,
Salem 636 014.
4. 8. Shri P.T. Palaniswamy,
S/o Thangavel Padayachi,
No.72, Main Road,
Periakrishnapuram P.O.,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
5. 9. Smt. Rathinam,
W/o Kaliappan,
Padayachi Nagar,
Periakrishnapuram P.O.,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
6. 10. Shri Abilesh
S/o Kaliappan,
Padayachi Nagar,
Periakrishnapuram P.O.,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
7. 11. Shri Akilesh, S/o Kaliappan,
Padayachi Nagar,
Periakrishnapuram P.O.,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
8. 12. Shri Settu,
S/o Periyathambi Naicker,
No.169, 2<sup>nd</sup> Street,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
9. 13. Shri Jaishankar,
S/o Periyathanbi Naicker,
No.169, 2<sup>nd</sup> Street,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
10. 14. Shri Srinivasan,
S/o Periyathanbi Naicker,
No.169, 2<sup>nd</sup> Street,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
11. 15. Shri P.M. Palanimuthu,
S/o Marimuthu Padayachi,
Periakrishnapuram P.O.,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
16. Shri P.T. Kandasamy,
S/o Thangavel Padayachi,
No.72, Main Road,
Periakrishnapuram P.O.,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
17. Smt. Poornammal @
Sampoornammal
Sister of Palanimuthu
Periakrishnapuram P.O.,
Pethanaickenpalayam
Taluk,
Salem District.
...Respondents
<table><tbody><tr><td>Counsel for appellant</td><td>:</td><td>Shri K. Suryakumar</td></tr><tr><td>Counsel for R1 Bank</td><td>:</td><td>M/s T. Sundar Rajan & Co.</td></tr><tr><td>Counsel for R2</td><td>:</td><td>Shri R.R. Pradeep</td></tr><tr><td>Counsel for R3 to R17</td><td>:</td><td>None</td></tr></tbody></table>
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. 1. This Appeal is preferred under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against order passed by Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore in Appeal Dy.No.1471/2023 in IA Dy.No.55/2023 in RP No.822/2019 in TRC No.458/2019.
2. 2. Heard Ld. Counsel for appellant, first respondent bank and the Auction Purchaser i.e., R2. None is present for R3 to R17 despite service of notice. R3 to R17 are called absent and set *ex parte*.
3. 3. This matter has a little chequered history. An order was passed by Recovery Officer, DRT, Coimbatore in RP No.822/2019 in TRC No.458/2019
{formerly RP No.87/2009 in DRC No.89/2001 in TA No.282/2009 (TA 1661/1997, Madurai - thereafter transferred from DRT Madurai to DRT Coimbatore)} appointing an Advocate Commissioner in the matter. This order was challenged by appellant by filing an Appeal No.1471/2023 in IA Dy.No.55/2023 in RP No.822/2019 in TRC No.458/2019 before DRT, Coimbatore under Section 30 of RDB Act, 1993. The relief sought was to set aside order dated 20.7.2023 passed in IA Dy.No.55/2023 by the Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore.
4. It appears that when the appeal was filed, Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore passed an order that IA Dy.No.55/20 is filed beyond the period prescribed under Rule 61 of Second Schedule of Income Tax Act 1961, hence, the same is not liable to be registered and hereby declined under Rule 5(4) of Debts Recovery (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
5. Against the order of Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore, an appeal is filed before Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, being Dy.No.1471/2023, which was again declined by the same Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore on 7.9.2023 with the following order.
*"This Appeal is challenging the order dated 20.7.2023 passed by the Registrar, DRT in IA Diary No.55/2023 in RP 22/2019 declining to register the petition under Rule 5(4) of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. Against this only appeal under R.5(5) is maintainable before Hon'ble PO and the time limit 15 days. However, the present Appeal is filed u/s 30 of RDB Act which is not the applicable provision that too after expiry of the period of limitation. Hence the same cannot be entertained"*
6. Against this order, appeal being AIR 1449/2023 before DRAT, Chennai was filed wherein again Registrar, DRAT, Chennai passed the following order:
*"This matter was listed before Registrar on 27.10.2023 for "Removal of defects/Compliance of returns", as published in the website of DRAT and displayed in the notice board of DRAT, Chennai.*
*The following proceedings has been passed.*
*Appellant counsel present. From the office objection, it is noted that Appeal is filed against the order passed by Ld. Registrar, DRT Coimbatore on 20/07/2023 declining to register the IA Diary No.55/2023 in RP No. 822/2019 in TRC No. 458/2019 under Rule 5 (4) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993.*
*As per DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 an Appeal against the order of Registrar shall be made within 15 days of such order to the Presiding Officer concerned in his chamber under Rule 5 (5). Accordingly Appellant is advised to submit Chamber Appeal before Hon'ble Presiding officer DRT Coimbatore in first instance.*
*Therefore this present Appeal is not maintainable and hence Declined under Rule 6 (4) of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules 1994."*
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Registrar, DRAT, Chennai, appellant preferred WP No.33622/2023 before Hon'ble High Court of Madras, which was decided on 2.2.2024 by the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Madras wherein it was held as follows:
*"The orders in recovery proceedings have to be passed by Recovery Officer and in an Appeal, by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. The Registrar may raise objections with regards to the defects and if defects are not rectified, decline to register the application. For deciding the issue and/or aspect of limitation, the matter has to be placed before the Recovery Officer and/or the Presiding Officer, as the case may be"*
8. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the Registrar, DRAT, Chennai was quashed and set aside and matter was directed to be placed before DRAT for hearing and passing appropriate orders.
9. Ld. Counsel for appellant would submit that he has preferred an appeal against the order of Recovery Officer appointing Advocate Commissioner which was rejected by Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore, an appeal was preferred before Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore which too was rejected by the same Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore. Again an appeal was preferred against the order of Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore before the DRAT, Chennai which was also rejected by Registrar, DRAT, Chennai. It shows that matter has never come up before the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore or Chairperson, DRAT, Chennai for judicial scrutiny.
10. As has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Madras, Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of limitation or maintainability of the Appeal. He has simply to point out defects if any and if defects are not removed within the stipulated time, he may decline to register the Appeal but at the same time, Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of maintainability or limitation. Such an exercise of powers by the Registrar is nothing but misuse of powers which should not have been done.
11. Since Appeal against orders passed by the Recovery Officer is yet to be heard and decided by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore, the whole exercise that had taken place at the level of Registrar, DRT, Coimbatore and the Registrar, DRAT, Chennai against law.
12. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by appellant is liable to be allowed with a direction to Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore to hear the Appeal preferred under Section 30 of RDB Act, 1993 strictly in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore should hear the Appeal as per the provisions subject to deposit of pre-deposit, etc.
13. It is made clear that that Appellate Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the matter, which has to be decided by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore.. Since it is an old matter, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Madras has issued directions, parties are directed to appear before Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore on 24.10.2024 for hearing.
14. With the above directions, Appeal, being AIR 1449/2023 is disposed of, accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
*[Dictated to Stenographer(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 1<sup>st</sup> October, 2024]*
Sd/- **(JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)** Chairperson, DRAT, Kolkata Holding Addl. Charge of DRAT, Chennai