Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK versus O.C. KRISHNAN AND ORS.

Decided
13 August 2001
Judges listed
B.N. KIRPAL, N. SANTOSH HEGDE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 466 · 2001 INSC 360
Also cited as
  • (2001) 6 SCC 569 (66 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2001 SC 3208 (7 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0452/2001 (3 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2001 SCW 2993 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 8 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Special leave granted.

p. 467, margin A

In the instant case, a suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of money from the principal debtor as well as the guarantors. The suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and thereafter on 17th May, 1996 decree was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta.

p. 467, margin A

The said suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 12,09, 175.39 against the principal debtor as well as a&ainst the guarantors, along with interest thereon, and it was further directed that the Recovery Officer shall first proceed to realise the amount on the sale of hypothecated plant and machinery and ~ortgaged prope~ty belonging to respondents 5 and 4 respectively and thereafter proceed to realise the balance, if any, in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, certificate was issued and recovery proceedings started.

p. 467, margin B

The respondent who was a guarantor and whose property was stated to have been mortgaged filed a petition under Article 227 before the High Court at .Calcutta. The High Court allowed the petition by observing that as the mortgaged property was situated in Chennai the Debts Recovery Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction in respect thereto and it could not have directed ·sale of mortgaged property. It, accordingly, held that the Bank would be at liberty to proceed against defendant No. 4, respondent herein, in appropriate forum for recovery of debts by sale of mortg~ged property. Hence this appeal.

p. 467, margin C

In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of mortgaged property was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the Act"). The High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 in view of the provision for alternative remedy contained in the Act. We "do not propose to go into the correctness of the decision of the High Court and whether the order passed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to be decided before an appropriate forum.

p. 467, margin E

The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Sectio.n 20 and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available judicial prudence demands that A the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This. was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the

pp. 467–468, margin F

Act. B For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the Calcutta High Court in CO. No. 1305/1997 is set aside. RP. Appeal allowed.

p. 468