Face-off Between DRT Member & Advocates : Supreme Court Leaves Matter To Be Decided By DRAT Chairman
story
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India disposed of a plea moved by the Judicial officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the High Court's order dated October 27 that restrained him from passing adverse orders in pending matters.The Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association had moved the High Court, arguing that the judicial member had been passing adverse orders deliberately.On December...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of India disposed of a plea moved by the Judicial officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the High Court's order dated October 27 that restrained him from passing adverse orders in pending matters.
The Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association had moved the High Court, arguing that the judicial member had been passing adverse orders deliberately.
On December 2, the Bench had set aside the High Court's order opining that such an order is unsustainable in law.
During the hearing yesterday, a Bench of Justices MR Shah and Ravindra Bhat was told that the Chairman of the DRAT is looking into the grievances made by the Bar Association, particularly on the Judicial member's conduct.
"What the presiding officer is doing is he is adjourning the matters to 2025 and 2026. We have placed the orders on record", the counsel for the Bar Association submitted.
Hearing this, Justice Bhat asked what the workload in the Tribunal was like.
"I've enquired discreetly with some unconnected members, there are some issues with the Petitioner but the High Court's order is unprecedented...It needs some administrative intervention, not because of workload but because of anger, etc.", Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said.
The counsel for the Bar Association further averred that the judicial member had not amended his ways despite the Supreme Court's previous order. "He is saying, you come back and I'll teach you a lesson".
On December 2, the Bench had reminded the petitioner to avoid unnecessary confrontation and to decide matters only on the merits."
SG Mehta then said that some administrative intervention is required in the matter.
The question here is, whether the structure of the Act grants such powers to the Chairman, the counsel for the Bar Association said.
"What the Judge has done under Article 227 is this, you cannot fault the judge, maybe the content is something which is... ", the counsel said.
"227 is against judicial orders, not against judicial officers. It is on the conduct of the proceedings", Justice Shah remarked.
"Tribunals are part of the (judicial) ecosystem. But there have to be some supervisory powers for the High Court. Otherwise, these distortions may creep in. District Courts, we can keep them on their toes because there is some administrative and disciplinary control. Perhaps, we can examine the powers under Article 227", Justice Bhat observed.
The judge added that for the CAT and NCLAT, there's a Chairman and their powers are limited to the Constitution of Benches, etc.
After the discussion, the Bench asked the Chairman, DRT to take an appropriate decision in the matter.
"In that view of the matter, we continue the ad-interim order granted earlier on 2.12.2022 and we leave the matter to the Chairman, DRT to take appropriate decision independently and if required, after giving an opportunity to both the parties. With this, we dispose of the present proceedings".
Case Title: MM Dhonchak vs Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association and Ors | SLP(C) No. 21138/2022 IV-B