2002 (8) TMI 572 - SC - Companies Law

Whether section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would be applicable since the transfer of the proceeding is not from one State to another State? Whether inherent jurisdiction of this Court would be attracted to a proceeding of this nature? Held that - Appeal dismissed. When exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the Tribunal under the Act in respect of matters that could be dealt with under section 17 of the Act, the jurisdiction in other Courts to entertain and decide such matters for recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions stood ousted as provided under section 18 of the Act. Further section 31 of the Act provides for transfer of cases from civil courts to the Tribunal. In this background, we do not think that it is expedient for the ends of justice to direct transfer of this case to the High Court.

Summary

Issues:
Transfer of Original Application to High Court

Analysis:
The petition filed sought the transfer of an Original Application pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to the High Court of Delhi. The application before the Tribunal involved allegations related to the issuance of a letter of credit in favor of a seller for the purchase of goods. The petitioner claimed that the goods were not received due to the sinking of the ship carrying them, leading to a dispute with the bank. The respondent resisted the transfer, arguing that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal established under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

The Court considered the legal aspects of the case, noting that the transfer of the case to the High Court was not covered under Article 139A of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court also raised doubts about the applicability of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court in such proceedings. However, the Court decided not to delve deeper into these aspects due to the view taken in the case.

The Court emphasized the legal position that a letter of credit constitutes a contract between the banker and the parties involved in the transaction, with strict compliance required from both the customer and the banker. It was highlighted that defenses such as fraud, apprehension of irretrievable injustice, or non-compliance with instructions could be raised in claims related to letters of credit before the Tribunal, with the option to appeal the decision.

The Court differentiated between suits based on insurance claims and claims based on letters of credit, stating that they arise from different causes of action. While common issues may arise in related cases, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Act for matters related to the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions ousted the jurisdiction of other courts. The Court cited a previous case to support this view and concluded that transferring the case to the High Court was not expedient for the ends of justice.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition seeking the transfer of the case to the High Court, based on the legal analysis provided regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.