Full Text
W.P.(CI 537/2019 AND CM APPL.2474/2019(ARISING OUT
OF APPL. VIDE DIARY NO.1911/20181 ICICIBANK LIMITED Petitioner
OF OA 1349/20181 ICICI BANK LIMITED Petitioner
OF APPL.VIDE DIARY NO.923/20181 ICICI BANK LIMITED Petitioner
M/S ICICI BANK LTD., Petitioner
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
21.01.2019
ORDER
1. The petitioner - ICICI Bank Ltd. has preferred the aforesaid writ 2019:DHC:7886-DB petitions,raising similar grievance.
2. The case ofthe petitioner is that for the defaults committed by the respective respondents - borrowers, the petitioner had preferred Original Applications before the Debt Recovery Tribunal(Tribunal)for recovery of loansfrom the respective respondents - borrowers.The amount outstanding in each of these cases was in excess of Rs.lO Lakhs. However, in OAs relating to WP(C)537/2019 and WP(C)599/2019,the Tribunalhassimply adjourned the proceedings,and the OAs filed-which are subject matter of WP(C) 552/2019 and WP(C) 606/2019, have not been listed before the Tribunal, on account ofthe Ministry ofFinance(Department ofFinancial Services)notification dated 06.09.2018,whereby,the pecuniaryjurisdiction ofthe Tribunal is purportedlyraised to Rs.20 Lakhs and above.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends out that the said notification is ultra vires Section 1(4)ofthe RecoveryofDebt due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 inasmuch as, the power vested in the Central Government to issue such notification under the said section lies only for lowering the said limit of Rs.lO lakhs to upto Rs.l Lakh. According to the leamed counsel for the petitioner. Section 1(4)ofthe Act vests no power in the Central Govemmentto raise the pecuniaryjurisdiction ofthe Tribunal beyond Rs.20 Lakhs by way of a notification. Ifthe same has to be done,the said Act should have been amended by the Parliament. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the same issue has been raised before the High Court ofJudicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in Kirti Kapoor & Ors. vs. Union of India, Civil Writ Petition NO. 21860/2018, wherein, on 26.09.2018, the said High Court stayed the operation of the notification dated 06.09.2018. Leamed Counsel further submits that despite the said order being in operation, the Tribunal is not followingit, and has notentertained and acteduponthe OA preferred bythe creditor bank/financial institution in respect ofoutstanding amounts, where the amountclaimed is above Rs.lO Lakhs,but,below Rs.20Lakhs.
4. We find merit in the aforesaid submission ofthe petitioner. Prima facie, it appears to us that the notification dated 06.09.2018 issued by the Central government exceeds its powers under Section 1(4) of the Act. Having regard to the aforesaid submission,we directthe Tribunalto proceed further in the matter,since the operation ofthe notification dated 06.09.2018 had been stayed by the order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the High Court Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in Civil Writ Petition NO. 21860/2018. The Tribunal is therefore, directed to proceed with and hear all such original applications also, wherein, the amounts is in excess of Rs.lO Lakhs and below Rs.20 Lakhs, subject to final orders that may be passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 21860/2018 by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasathan Bench at Jaipur.
5. Accordingly, we direct that the OAs and the applications filed by the petitioner be listed before the Tribunal on 28.01.2019. The Tribunal shall deal with them on merit.
6. The writ petitions stand disposed ofin the above terms.
7. Dasti. VI^IN SANGHI,J A.K.CHAWLA,J