The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Lucknow, citing complete absence of reasoning and application of mind. Justice Pankaj Bhatia issued the ruling while hearing MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 2946 of 2025, filed by three petitioners against the Union of India and others.
Background
The petition challenged the DRT’s order dated 2 May 2025, which dismissed an interim relief application filed by the petitioners. The relief sought was to restrain the respondents from taking physical possession of the secured assets. The DRT dismissed the application, stating summarily that no case was made out for granting such relief.
Petitioners’ Argument
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Alok Saxena contended that although the DRT’s orders are appealable, the impugned order reflected a poor standard of judicial reasoning. He pointed out that the order merely listed the pleadings and responses and then abruptly concluded without assigning any reasons. He argued that “a reasoned order is heart and soul of any judicial order,” and emphasized that the order failed to meet this fundamental requirement.
Respondents’ Stand
The counsel for the Union of India, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, and counsel for the respondent bank, Sri Abhishek Khare (assisted by Ms. Parul Sharma), tried to justify the order but conceded that it lacked adequate reasoning, which is expected from a judicial tribunal.
Court’s Observations
Justice Bhatia, upon reviewing the DRT’s order, noted:
“A perusal of the order reveals total non-application of mind and prima-facie gives an impression that there is a lack of training of the Member Tribunal manning the office at DRT.”
He observed that similar non-reasoned orders were being passed by the DRT Lucknow in other matters as well.
Final Decision
The Court quashed the DRT’s order dated 2 May 2025, and remanded the matter back to the DRT, directing it to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after duly considering the pleadings and defenses. The High Court ordered that the fresh decision be made preferably within four weeks. It also granted protection to the petitioners by restraining any coercive action for the same period.
Further, the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, recommending training for the concerned Tribunal officer. Both the Senior Registrar and the counsel for the Union of India were directed to forward the order to the Ministry.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vimla Kashyap and 2 Others vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Financial Services, New Delhi and 3 Others
Case No.: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 2946 of 2025
