Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

Allahabad High Court Directs Detailed Inquiry into DRT Presiding Officer’s Conduct, Cites Need for Transparency"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

Chairperson of DRAT instructed to submit a preliminary report on allegations of misbehavior, nepotism, and procedural improprieties within four weeks.

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has directed a thorough inquiry into the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Lucknow. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra and Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, mandates the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) to scrutinize and report on allegations of misbehavior, nepotism, and procedural improprieties within four weeks. The Union Ministry of Finance is then required to take a reasoned decision based on the report.

The writ petition was filed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Bar Association through its Secretary, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, seeking a detailed inquiry into the conduct of the DRT Presiding Officer. The Bar Association's allegations included claims of consistent misbehavior, nepotism, and arbitrary decision-making by the Presiding Officer, Shri A.H. Khan, leading to a strike by the Bar Association that significantly disrupted the Tribunal's functioning.

The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining transparency and accountability in judicial conduct. It noted previous petitions by private parties, which had raised similar concerns about the Presiding Officer. "Reasoned and transparent decision-making is crucial in judicial conduct inquiries," the Court observed, underscoring the need for a thorough examination of the allegations.

The Court acknowledged the detrimental impact of the strike by the Bar Association on the DRT's operations. The strike had led to a significant backlog of cases and hampered the delivery of justice. The Court directed the advocates to resume their work and cooperate with the judicial process, noting that subsequent orders led to the disposal of a substantial number of cases. "Continuous judicial functioning is vital for protecting the interests of litigants," the Court stated.

The judgment highlighted the role of the Central Government in addressing the grievances raised by the Bar Association. It directed the Chairperson, DRAT, to submit a preliminary report on the Presiding Officer’s conduct within four weeks and instructed the Central Government to make a reasoned decision based on this report within four weeks thereafter. The Court reinforced the statutory obligations under the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021.

The Court extensively discussed the legal framework governing the inquiry into judicial conduct. It referred to Section 15(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and relevant rules under the DRT (Procedure for Investigation of Misbehavior or Incapacity of Presiding Officer) Rules, 2010, and Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021. The judgment emphasized that a thorough and unbiased inquiry is necessary to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Hon'ble Justice Sangeeta Chandra remarked, "The allegations of misbehavior and procedural improprieties warrant a detailed and impartial scrutiny to maintain the credibility of the judicial system." Justice Shree Prakash Singh added, "The continuous judicial functioning of the Tribunal is paramount, and any disruptions must be addressed promptly and effectively."

The Allahabad High Court's directive for a detailed inquiry into the conduct of the DRT Presiding Officer underscores the judiciary's commitment to transparency and accountability. By mandating a preliminary scrutiny and a reasoned decision from the Central Government, the judgment aims to reinforce the legal framework governing judicial conduct. This decision is expected to have a significant impact on the functioning of tribunals, ensuring that allegations of misconduct are addressed with the seriousness they deserve.

 

Date of Decision: 8th July 2024

Debt Recovery Tribunal vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Others

 

Latest Legal News

  • by Lawyer IT
    16 September 2026 1:41 PM
Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court
  • by Lawyer IT
    16 September 2026 1:30 PM
Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court
  • by Lawyer IT
    16 September 2026 1:21 PM
Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court
  • by Lawyer IT
    16 September 2026 1:11 PM
Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21
  • by sayum
    16 September 2026 9:42 AM
DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court
  • by sayum
    16 September 2026 9:41 AM
Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court