M/S. Manohar Lal & Party v. Income Tax Officer, Ward

In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, JaipurO R D E R D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.763/2016 M/s. Manohar Lal & Party Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Sawaimadhopur & Ors. & D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.764/2016 Shiv Dayal Vs. Debt Recovery Officer-I, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. Date : 26-5-2016 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay RastogiHon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Chandra Somani Mr. R.P. Garg Adv., for appellant. Both these intra court appeals have been filed against theorder of the learned Single Judge Impugned dt.4-5-2016 As reveals from the records that initially when the order cameto be passed by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal,Jaipur dt.17-11-2008 M/s. Manohar Lal & Party approached to thisCourt by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14019/2008 without firstexhausting statutory remedy available u/S 30 of the Recovery ofDebts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act,1993 (“Act,1993”)and it appears that after the notices came to be served, onpreliminary objection being raised that the writ petition preferredat the instance of the appellant assailing order of the RecoveryOfficer dt.17-11-2008 is not maintainable in the light of statutoryremedy available u/S 30 of the Act,1993 & on further order beingpassed by the Recovery Officer dt.7-1-2015 on the pendingapplication, Shiv Dayal who was also one of the debtor againstwhom there was a decree of the Tribunal, he too approached to this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1928/2015 assailing order of the Recovery Officer dt.7-1-2015. When both the two writpetitions, of which we have made a reference, came up before thelearned Single Judge, taking note of availability of statutory remedyu/S 30 of the Act,1993, the learned Single Judge was not inclined toexercise its equitable jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution ofIndia & without going into merits dismissed both the writ petitionsunder order impugned dt.4-5-2016 with liberty to the appellant toavail remedy available under the law at the same time furtherliberty was granted for seeking condonation of delay obviously byfiling application taking note of Sec.14 of the Limitation Act. Sh. R.P. Garg Adv., appearing for appellants has tried topersuade this Court that although statutory remedy is available u/S30 of the Act,1993 but if the order passed by the Recovery Officer iswithout jurisdiction & not in conformity with the provisions of theAct,1993 alternative remedy may not come as a bar in entertainingthe writ petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. To satisfy the decree passed by the Tribunal it is only theRecovery Officer to proceed in terms of the procedure prescribedunder the Act,1993 and if there is any error in the procedurefollowed by the recovery officer in passing order or determiningliability of borrower/guarantor as the case may, it cannot beobserved/held that the order passed by the Recovery Officer waswithout jurisdiction and since the statutory remedy is available u/S30 of the Act,1993, the learned Single Judge was of the view that availability of alternative remedy in itself is sufficient not to exercise/invoke jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.Taking note of the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, wedo not find any error being committed to differ with the view toexpress in the instant intra court appeals. After we have heard counsel for appellants, we find nosubstance in either of the appeals. Consequently, both the appeals stands dismissed. Copy of this order be separately placed in each file. (Dinesh Chandra Somani), J. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS/