The DRAT, as an appellate authority, has the duty to decide all issues based on the material available on record. Routine and unjustified remands delay litigation and deprive parties of timely justice. Remand should only be ordered when it is imperative for the interest of justice and when no adequate opportunity was provided to the parties in the original forum. (Paras: 25, 26, 28, 36, 37, 38)

The Bombay High Court set aside the DRAT’s order of 26 April 2024 and directed the DRAT to decide the appeals filed by the respondents on their merits without further remand to the DRT.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 — Section 2(g) — Definition of "Debt"

2. Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Section 72 — Liability for Money Paid Under Mistake

3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 41, Rule 23 — Remand of Case by Appellate Court

4. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 41, Rule 23-A — Remand in Cases Other than Preliminary Decree

Subjects:

Appellate Jurisdiction — Debt Definition — Remand Principles — Judicial Efficiency — Finality of Orders — Appellate Authority — Legal Interpretation — Discretionary Power

Nature of the Litigation: The case arose from a dispute concerning the determination of whether the amount claimed by HDFC Bank Limited constituted a "debt" under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, following transactions involving Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait BSC and Ashima Limited.

Relief Sought: HDFC Bank Limited sought to quash the common order dated 26 April 2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) and requested a declaration affirming its claim as a "debt" under the said Act.

Reason for Filing the Case: HDFC Bank Limited contested the DRAT’s order remanding the matter back to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for fresh consideration on jurisdiction and other issues, arguing that sufficient factual material was already available and that the remand was unjustified.

Decisions Made So Far:

1. Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), by its order dated 26 October 2005, held that the amount claimed by HDFC Bank Limited constituted a "debt" under Section 2(g) of the said Act.

2. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) set aside the DRT’s order of 30 June 2017 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Issues:

a) Whether the amount claimed by HDFC Bank Limited constitutes a "debt" under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. b) Whether the DRAT’s order of remand was justified when sufficient factual and legal material was already available. c) Whether the DRAT properly exercised its jurisdiction and discretionary power in ordering the remand.

d) Whether the principles governing remand, as laid down in Order 41 Rules 23 and 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were adhered to.

Submissions/Arguments:

1. HDFC Bank Limited argued that the DRAT failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not deciding the issues despite having sufficient factual material on record.

2. HDFC Bank contended that the DRAT’s remand was an unjustified and routine action contrary to settled legal principles.

3. The Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait and Ashima Limited maintained that the issue of jurisdiction had to be determined, and the remand was necessary to ensure complete adjudication.