High Court dismisses petition challenging Registrar DRT's jurisdiction, emphasizing procedural compliance and judicial efficiency.
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dismissed a petition filed by Dinesh Kumar Jindal against the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), asserting the Registrar's authority to issue notices under the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. The judgment, delivered by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, clarified the scope of the Registrar's powers, emphasizing that such procedural actions do not constitute a jurisdictional overreach or cause injustice to the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Registrar of DRT, Lucknow, requiring respondents to appear in a Securitisation Application (SA) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Jindal argued that such notices should be issued by the Presiding Officer, not the Registrar, and claimed that this procedural step caused undue delay in addressing his application.
The court, however, upheld the Registrar's actions, citing the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. Rule 23 explicitly grants the Registrar the authority to handle procedural matters, including the issuance of notices and fixing hearing dates, under the guidance of the Presiding Officer. The court noted that these actions are essential for the orderly progression of cases and do not result in legal prejudice against parties involved.
Furthermore, the High Court emphasized its limited supervisory role under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is confined to ensuring that subordinate courts and tribunals operate within their jurisdiction. The court reiterated that it would not intervene in procedural matters unless there is a demonstrable error or grave injustice.
The judgment also addressed the broader responsibilities of legal advocates, urging them to avoid filing frivolous petitions that burden the court system. The court chose not to impose costs on the petitioner, considering the counsel's relative inexperience, but highlighted the importance of advocates as officers of the court who must assist in the administration of justice.
This decision reinforces the procedural integrity of the DRT system and delineates the roles within its administrative framework, ensuring that justice is served efficiently and within the bounds of established legal protocols.
Bottom Line:
Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has jurisdiction to issue notice to respondents in a Securitisation Application under Rule 23 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, and such notice does not amount to causing injustice or failure of justice to the petitioner.
Statutory provision(s): Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 - Rules 4, 5, 12, 22, and 23; Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227
Dinesh Kumar Jindal v. Debt Recovery Tribunal, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2842221
