Introduction:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that an aggrieved individual can appeal against “any order” passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. This clarification came in response to the filing of civil revision petitions (CRPs) against an interlocutory order passed by the DRT. The Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan emphasized that the legal remedy available under the Act is an appeal, and as such, civil revision petitions should not be entertained. The Court observed that Section 20 of the Act provides for an appeal against any order made by the DRT, including those related to the rejection of an application for condoning delay or setting aside an ex-parte order. The Bench noted that an appeal is an adequate and effective remedy for individuals aggrieved by such orders, and therefore, revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was not appropriate. This judgment stems from a case involving Punjab National Bank, which had initiated proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of dues. When the petitioner failed to present evidence, the DRT passed an ex-parte order in favour of the bank. The petitioner subsequently applied to set aside the order and condone the delay in doing so. However, both applications were dismissed by the DRT, which concluded that the order was not ex-parte in nature. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of these applications, filed two CRPs before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

Arguments:

In the petitioner’s argument, counsel Penjuri Venugopal cited a previous case, *Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society vs. Ameena Begum and Another*, where it was established that an aggrieved party had multiple remedies against an ex-parte order. These remedies included filing an appeal, an application to set aside the order, or seeking a review. The petitioner’s counsel contended that these alternative remedies did not preclude the filing of civil revision petitions, arguing that the rejection of the application to set aside the ex-parte order should not limit the petitioner’s right to appeal.

On the other hand, the respondent, represented by Sravan Kumar Mannava, contended that the petitioner had a clear alternative remedy under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which allowed for an appeal against the orders of the DRT. The respondent argued that since the statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, the CRPs should not be entertained by the High Court, as doing so would undermine the framework established by the Act.

Judgement:

The High Court, after hearing the arguments, clarified that under Section 20 of the Act, the term “any order” covers all orders made by the DRT, including orders related to the rejection of applications to set aside an ex-parte order or to condone delays. The Bench noted that the Act itself provides an adequate and effective remedy through the appellate process. Consequently, the Court concluded that it was not inclined to entertain the civil revision petitions filed by the petitioner. The Court observed that while the petitioner had filed applications seeking to set aside the ex-parte order, this did not preclude the availability of the appeal process under Section 20 of the Act. The Court further stated that even if the petitioner had applied to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to set aside the ex-parte order, the rejection of that application would not negate the statutory remedy of appeal.

The Court thus dismissed the civil revision petitions, reiterating that the remedy of appeal provided under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act was the appropriate course of action for the petitioner. The decision underlined the principle that the High Court should refrain from entertaining civil revision petitions in cases where an alternative and equally effective remedy is available, especially in the context of statutory frameworks like the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act.

The legal issue at hand revolves around the interpretation of Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which provides an aggrieved party the right to appeal any order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court’s decision to uphold the appeal process and dismiss the CRPs aligns with the broader principle of promoting the statutory remedies established by the legislature. This judgment also serves to reinforce the idea that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised with caution, particularly when a comprehensive alternative remedy is available within the statutory scheme.