9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal had not been constituted then. On 16-7-1999 the constitution of the Debt Recovery Tribunal was notified. Thus, execution application was being transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal when the defendant erroneously made an application for speaking to the minutes of an administrative order by which all matters filed by the Bank and Financial Institutions were being transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. This Court directed the defendant to take out a Chamber Summons for retaining in respect of this matter which was slated for transfer to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Admittedly, the papers have not yet been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal and they are in this Court. Upon liberty granted as aforesaid, the Defendant has taken out this Chamber Summons. 3. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether the decree obtained by the plaintiff, Bank of India, can be executed under section 44A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or in view of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, must be executed in accordance with the provisions of that Act. It is, therefore, necessary to set out certain provisions of the Act which are as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ( g ), it was contended by Mr. Rana, the learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor that though the amount in question satisfies the definition of debt in all other respect, since, however, the claim of the bank is under a Decree or order, it falls outside the definition of debt. According to the learned Counsel, the amount would be a debt, if it is payable under a decree or order of any civil court in India and not that of a superior court of a reciprocating territory as contemplated by Section 44A. There is no doubt that the superior court of a reciprocating territory contemplated by section 44A would not ordinarily be construed to be a civil court. However, section 44A(1) reads as follows : "Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the Superior Courts of any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court." [Emphasis supplied] Thus, it is clear that the Parliament has intended that a decree of a superior court of any reciprocating territory, for the purpose of its execution in India must be, for the purpose of its execution in India, treated as a decree passed by a District Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lleged debtor by the Tribunal and ( b ) execution of the certificate of recovery issued by the Recovery Officer under the Act. The Supreme Court has observed as follows :- "25. Thus, the adjudication of liability and the recovery of the amount by execution of the certificate are, respectively, within exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Recovery Officer and no other Court or authority much less the Civil Court or the Company Court can go into the said questions relating to the liability and the recovery except as provided in the Act." (p. 1545) The Supreme Court has further observed that all such applications including application for execution shall stand transferred to the Tribunal and will have to be disposed of in the same manner as applications under section 19 of the Act. 8. To turn now to the above mentioned submission on behalf of the Defendant Bank, there appears no reason in law to differentiate between an execution proceeding taken out by a holder of a decree of a foreign court and execution application taken out by a decree holder of a decree of a domestic court for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the DRT to entertain an application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ign decree by virtue of section 44A(1) must also be so executed in accordance with the law in India. Thus, for the purpose of ascertaining whether a foreign decree is liable to be executed only under the provisions of Act, the difference between the two kinds of decree would be of no significance. 10. Having regard to the clear terms in which section 17 is couched and the interpretation placed on the scheme of the Act by the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank s case ( supra ), it is clear that the execution of a decree whether domestic or foreign is in the nature of an application for recovery of a debt and must be entertained and decided by the DRT alone and its Recovery Officer only under the scheme of the Act. 11. Mr. Rana, the learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor next contended that there is an inherent difference between the nature of objection that can be raised by a Judgment Debtor of a foreign decree and a Judgment Debtor of a domestic decree. According to Mr. Rana, a foreign decree may be objected to by the Judgment Debtor on the grounds enumerated in section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides as follows : "13. When foreign judgment not conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y order passed by it ex parte ; ( h )any other matter which may be prescribed; (3) Any proceeding before the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and the Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)." 12. In short, the submission is that the only ground on which the objection can be raised is on the ground of natural justice and no other. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the legislative scheme of the Parliament may be interpreted in such a manner so as to preserve the right of the judgment debtor to raise objection which he is entitled to raise under section 13. 13. Mr. Tulzapurkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the decree holder strongly opposed this interpretation which, in effect, ripples the power of the DRT to consider objection to the decree. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Industrial Credit Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Grapco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in view of the fact that Act is indeed a special law enacted under Entry 45 of List-I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India for the purpose of enabling only the Banks and Financial Institutions to recover debts due to them. Since both laws must be deemed to be Special Laws, the principle that must be applied is the one applied by the Supreme Court on several occasions. Mr. Tulzapurkar, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. AIR 2001 SC 958, in which the Supreme Court vide paragraphs 9 and 10 has observed as follows : "9. It is clear that both these Acts are Special Acts. This Court has laid down in no uncertain terms that in such an event it is the later Act which must prevail. The decisions cited in the above context are as follows:- Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State Industrial and Investment Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd. AIR 1993 SCW 991; Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal AIR 1977 SC 265; Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank AIR 2000 SC 1535 and Shri Ram Narain v. Simla Banking Industrial Co. Ltd. AIR 1956 SC 614. 10. We may notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained by the Tribunal under the provisions of the Act and while doing so, the Tribunal would be entitled to exercise all the powers which the district Court would have exercised under the Code of Civil Procedure. In Solidaire India Ltd. s case ( supra ), the Supreme Court has observed that : "It is a settled rule of interpretation that if one construction leads to a conflict, whereas on another construction, two Acts can be harmoniously constructed, then the latter must be adopted. . . ." (p. 960) 16. Mr. Rana, the learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor lastly relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in ICICI Ltd. v. M.F.V. Shilpa [2002] Vol. 104 (1) Bom. LR 724, in which it is held that by virtue of article 225 of the Constitution of India, read with section 51 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1956, the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court remains unaffected by passing of the Act. While taking the said view, the learned Single Judge has observed that the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court necessarily extends to the economic zone where riggs are located or vessel financed by the bank sail, and has further observed that the DRT would have no juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
