2000 (12) TMI 869 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), New Delhi.
2. Maintainability of appeals against interim orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur.
3. Agreement clause conferring jurisdiction to Delhi Courts.
4. Balance of convenience in favor of the respondents.
5. Interim orders and their implications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), New Delhi:
The petitioner, Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., challenged the jurisdiction of the DRAT, New Delhi, to entertain appeals against orders passed by the DRT, Jaipur. The Bank argued that the DRAT, New Delhi, had no jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders dated 5-7-2000 and 6-9-2000 passed by the DRT, Jaipur. The respondents contended that the jurisdiction of the DRT, Jaipur, should be decided first, as per their agreement which conferred jurisdiction to Delhi Courts.

2. Maintainability of appeals against interim orders passed by the DRT, Jaipur:
The petitioner argued that no appeal lies against the interim orders passed by the DRT, Jaipur, as such orders were neither covered under section 19(25) of the Act of 1993 nor were they final orders. The Bank contended that only final orders passed under section 19 of the Act are appealable under section 20. The respondents, however, filed appeals before the DRAT, New Delhi, challenging the jurisdiction of the DRT, Jaipur.

3. Agreement clause conferring jurisdiction to Delhi Courts:
The respondents argued that the agreement between the parties explicitly stated that all disputes shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. They contended that the DRT, Jaipur, had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Bank. The Tribunal at Jaipur should have decided the jurisdiction issue first, as per the agreement clause.

4. Balance of convenience in favor of the respondents:
The Tribunal, in its order dated 6-9-2000, failed to decide the issue of jurisdiction and kept the application of the respondents in abeyance. The respondents contended that the Tribunal should have decided the jurisdiction issue first, especially when there was a specific agreement to this effect. The balance of convenience lies in favor of the respondents, as the Tribunal should have adhered to the agreement clause.

5. Interim orders and their implications:
The Tribunal, Jaipur, passed interim orders restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating their properties. The respondents argued that the Tribunal should have vacated these interim orders, as the jurisdiction issue was still pending. The High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the question of its territorial jurisdiction within one month and maintained the interim orders passed by the DRT, Jaipur, until the jurisdiction issue was resolved.

Conclusion:
The High Court directed the DRT, Jaipur, to decide the question of its territorial jurisdiction within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The Tribunal was instructed to proceed with the jurisdiction issue first and then decide the case on merits, subject to the final outcome of the jurisdiction decision. The interim orders passed by the DRT, Jaipur, and the stay on proceedings before the DRAT, New Delhi, were to remain in force until the jurisdiction issue was resolved. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →