Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata bench comprising Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava was hearing an appeal and held that granting the benefit of One Time Settlement scheme should be left to the commercial wisdom of bank.
In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal heard the appeal filed by the Appellant Bank against an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in which the DRT stayed further proceedings regarding the confirmation of the sale and directed the Bank to enter into a one-time settlement scheme.
The Appellant argued that the appeal was bad in law, as the DRT had not provided any reasons for its conclusion and had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the settlement under the one-time settlement scheme.
The Appellate Tribunal noted that the impugned order lacked reasons and did not discuss the pleadings of the parties. Referring to relevant legal principles, the Appellate Tribunal emphasized the importance of reasoned orders and held that the lack of reasons rendered the order arbitrary and in violation of the law.
Additionally, the DRAT referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that the decision to grant the benefit of a one-time settlement scheme should be left to the commercial wisdom of the bank.
Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal concluded that the DRT had exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing conditions for the one-time settlement scheme. The decision to grant the benefit of the One Time Settlement scheme should be entrusted to the bank's commercial discretion.
The DRAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the DRT to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.
Comments