Amaravati, December 11, 2024: In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions (CRP Nos. 2937 of 2024 and 569 of 2020) filed by Boddu Prasad Rao, challenging orders issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at Visakhapatnam in a case initiated by Punjab National Bank. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Challa Gunaranjan.
The petitions revolved around an ex-parte decree passed by the DRT in 2017 against the petitioner, who was one of the defendants in the original application filed by the bank for debt recovery. The petitioner sought to condone a delay in filing an application to set aside the decree, which the DRT had dismissed, asserting that the order was passed on merits and not ex-parte.
The High Court, emphasizing the principle of alternate remedies, observed that Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, provides a clear statutory mechanism for appeal to an appellate tribunal. The court reiterated that entertaining petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is generally discouraged when a statutory remedy exists, barring exceptional circumstances.
The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s precedents, including Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank, which emphasize refraining from bypassing statutory forums in debt recovery cases. Highlighting the hierarchy of remedies under the Act, the bench concluded that the petitions lacked merit for adjudication under the constitutional provisions.
The dismissal underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining procedural discipline in debt recovery disputes while ensuring that specialized tribunals operate as intended.
