9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether execution proceedings pending before the High Court need to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Transfer of Execution Proceedings to DRT This case addresses the conflict of opinion among different learned Single Judges of the High Court regarding whether execution proceedings pending before the High Court should be transferred to the DRT under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the 'Act'). Background and Legislative Context: - The plaintiff (Bank of India) obtained a decree for Rs. 10 lakhs against the defendants, which led to the execution application No. 20 of 1991. - The Act came into force on 24-6-1993, establishing the DRT to ensure the speedy recovery of debts due to financial institutions. - Section 19 of the Act allows banks to make an application to the DRT for debt recovery. - The definition of 'debt' in Section 2(g) was amended by Ordinance No. 1 of 2000 to include liabilities payable under a decree or order of any civil court. - Section 18 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of other courts in matters specified in Section 17, giving exclusive jurisdiction to the DRT. - Section 31 originally required the transfer of suits or other proceedings to the DRT but did not explicitly cover execution proceedings. - Section 31A, introduced by Ordinance No. 1 of 2000, allows the DRT to issue a recovery certificate based on an existing unexecuted decree. Judicial Opinions: - Rebello, J.: Held that execution proceedings do not fall within the definition of 'other proceedings' under Section 31 and thus should not be transferred to the DRT. He emphasized that the Act did not provide for converting existing decrees into certificates for recovery by the DRT. - Das, J.: Disagreed with Rebello, J., but also concluded that execution proceedings should not be transferred to the DRT. He argued that transferring such proceedings would create confusion and delay. - Kapadia, J.: Held that all suits, execution proceedings, and interim applications should be transferred to the DRT following the amendments introduced by Ordinance No. 1 of 2000. He emphasized that Section 31A resolved the earlier lacunae by allowing the DRT to issue recovery certificates based on existing decrees. Resolution by the Division Bench: - The Division Bench agreed with Kapadia, J.'s interpretation, stating that the amendments introduced by Ordinance No. 1 of 2000 addressed the concerns raised in earlier judgments. - The Bench clarified that the term 'other proceedings' in Section 31 includes execution proceedings. - Section 31A allows the DRT to issue a recovery certificate for unexecuted decrees, ensuring that the execution process is streamlined and falls within the purview of the DRT. - The Bench rejected the argument that Section 31A only applies to decrees where no execution steps have been taken, stating that a decree is considered 'not yet executed' until the decretal amount is recovered and paid to the decree holder. - The Bench also clarified that the DRT's discretion under Section 31A(2) is limited to examining the validity of the decree on narrow grounds, such as nullity or fraud, and is not intended to allow the DRT to sit in appeal over the decree. Conclusion: - The Division Bench concluded that all execution proceedings pending before the High Court at the time of the Act's commencement must be transferred to the DRT. - The prothonotary was directed to transfer all such pending execution proceedings to the DRT for further action in accordance with the Act as amended. Final Judgment: The reference was answered in the affirmative, confirming that execution proceedings pending before the High Court should be transferred to the DRT.
|
