NAME OF THE CASE AND CORAM
- Case Name: State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India
- Case Number: Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1018/2021
- Coram: Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice L Nageswara Rao
- The petitioner's claim that the notification was illegal and in violation of Section 4 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks Act.
- The Kerala High Court made a recent ruling that the Centre cannot delegate the charge of a debt.
- The State Bar Council of MP filed a petition questioning a notice issued by the Central Government attaching the jurisdiction of DRT Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) to DRT Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) instead of filling the vacancy of Presiding Officer at DRT Jabalpur.
- The dilemma, according to the bench, also exists in other states. After Attorney General for India KK Venugopal stated that the Union would make appointments quickly, the hearing was adjourned for two weeks.
- During the hearing, the Bench further noted that the Kerala High Court's recent ruling that the Centre cannot delegate the charge of a Debt Recovery Tribunal in one state to the Presiding Officer of another state had national significance.
- According to the CJI, similar issues exist in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, because there are no DRT Benches in Hyderabad or Visakhapatnam. As a result, many were forced to travel to Calcutta. However, because there is no official in Calcutta, the officer in Lucknow is placed in charge.
- Various other practical problems related to the lack of local benches of DRT, the malpractices of banks and the lack of interference by the High Courts were also discussed.
- On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled against the Central Governments practice of extending the jurisdiction of the debt collection court from one state to another because of the vacancy of the presiding officer.
Hope you enjoyed reading this. You may now be able to answer the following questions, let us know in the comments section
- Do you know what the role of DRT is?
- Have you ever faced such a problem while going for other states’ jurisdiction?