IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.725 of 2011
-----------
M/S New Rajendra Tyre Agency, N.H. 31, Har-Har Mahadeo Chowk,
near Kailash Hotel, Meerganj, Begusarai through its Proprietor, Rashmi
Singh, wife of Sri Rajendra Prasad, resident of village and P.O.
Khutaha Chetan Tola, P.S. Barahia, District Lakhisarai
….. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna through its Registrar, 34,
Bank Road, Opposite New Police Line, Lodhipur, Patna-800001.
2. The Central Bank of India, Begusarai Branch its Branch Manager,
Begusarai.
3. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Saharsa, Regional
Office Kosi Chowk, Ward No.12, Saharsa 852201.
4. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India Zonal Office Maurya
Lok Complex, Patna.
…. Respondents
——-
For the Petitioner : M/s. Kaushalesh Choudhary and
Kula Nand Jha, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvesh Chandra Verma, Advocate
——
03/ 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for respondent-Central Bank of India and its authorities.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
challenging order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure 7) passed by the
Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna in M.A.
No. 06 of 2010 dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and affirming the
ex parte order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure 6) passed by the same
authority in O.A. No. 51 of 2006.
3. It transpires that the Central Bank of India filed O.A.
No. 51 of 2006 under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due
to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( hereinafter referred
to as `the Act’ for the sake of brevity ) against the petitioner to
recover its debts along with pendente lite and future interest at the
contractual rate. The said O.A. No. 51 of 2006 was allowed by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure
6).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said
order was passed behind the back of the petitioner, whereas,
learned counsel for the respondents submits that notices were duly
served upon the petitioner, who had appeared and filed written
statement in the case, but on the date of final decision he absented.
Hence the petitioner filed M.A. No. 06 of 2010 on 21.01.2010 for
recalling/setting aside the aforesaid order dated 30.09.2009. This
M.A. No. 06 of 2010 has been rejected by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal vide order dated 29.10.2010 (Annexure 7).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that she
has been paying amount regularly and she is ready to pay the entire
amount as is clear from her application dated 13.10.2010
(Annexure 10), in which only concession was requested under the
One Time Settlement Scheme ( hereinafter referred to as `the
O.T.S. Scheme’ for the sake of brevity).
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
quite apparent that the impugned order of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal is appealable before the Appellate Tribunal under section
20 of the Act, but without exhausting the said remedy the petitioner
has approached this court. Furthermore, the question with regard to
O.T.S. Scheme could have also been raised by the petitioner before
the Appellate Authority but she has failed to exhaust her statutory
remedy although no special case is made out for consideration by
this court.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The
petitioner may utilise the statutory remedy available to it by way of
filing an appeal and if any interim relief is required by the
petitioner, it may approach the said authority by filing an
interlocutory application in that respect also which, if filed, shall
be decided in accordance with law.
MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)