9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court that because the original decree which was passed was for a principal sum of ₹ 6,19,250 the Tribunal would get no jurisdiction. It is to be seen that the decree was for a sum of ₹ 6,19,250 plus interest at the rate of 16½ per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of money. As and when the amount due to the bank under the decree became more than ₹ 10 lakhs and an application for execution was filed, it could only be entertained by the Tribunal and not by the Civil Court. It is clear that in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Act, the provisions of Order 21, rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure would have no application. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4365 OF 2000 - - - Dated:- 1- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents thereupon filed a revision petition in the High Court. By judgment dated 1-4-1999, the High Court came to the conclusion, while reversing the decision of the Trial Court, that the execution proceedings could not be transferred and it is only the Civil Court, which had passed the decree, which could execute the same. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 5. The point in issue is no longer res integra . After analysing the provisions of the Act, this Court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank [2000] 101 Comp. Cas. 64 held that the word proceeding in section 31 of the Act would include an execution proceeding pending before a Civil Court before the commencement of the Act. It was further held that the suits and proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with such suit or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under section 19 from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Tribunal may deem fit. 6. A bare reading of the aforesaid section shows that the execution application being a proceeding pending in a Civil Court when the Act came into force was liable to be transferred to the Tribunal because the amount for which the execution application has been filed as per the decree which had been passed, was over ₹ 10 lakhs. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the use of the words cause of action in section 31 indicated that it is only pending suits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate in respect of a debt recoverable under this Act. 9. The aforesaid section 31A is clearly applicable in the present case. The decree was passed by a Court before the commencement of the Amendment Act and the same has not yet been executed. At least after the amendment, it is only the Tribunal which would have the jurisdiction of entertaining the application for execution of the decree inasmuch as the amount due for which the decree was sought to be executed is over ₹ 10 lakhs. We are also unable to agree with the High Court that because the original decree which was passed was for a principal sum of ₹ 6,19,250 the Tribunal would get no jurisdiction. It is to be seen that the decree was for a sum of ₹ 6,19,250 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
