9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -7-2000 and 6-9-2000 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur and to restrain the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi from proceeding further in the matter of hearing of the appeal; ( iv )and may pass any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon ble court consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. The short facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under : The petitioner-bank sanctioned certain credit-facilities to the first respondent herein pursuant to the application of the respondent No. 1. According to the Bank, the loan application was considered in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank held on 6-1-1995 within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jaipur. The Bank sanctioned the credit facilities as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter dated 20-1-1995. In consideration of the Bank s granting credit facilities, the respondent No. 1 executed various documents. As the respondent No. 1 failed to make the payment and committed breach of the agreement, the Bank was constraine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided. As regards the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the DRT, Jaipur, specially mentioned in its order dated 6-9-2000 that such jurisdiction question will be determined after framing the issues on these points. The DRT, as already noticed, passed orders on various dates and listed the case on various dates. During the course of the proceedings before the DRT, the defendant by giving application on 17-10-2000 sought an adjournment on the ground that against the order dated 5-7-2000 and 6-9-2000 passed by the DRT, Jaipur, the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 filed two appeals before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which have been registered as Misc. Appeal Nos. 191/2000 and 192/2000 respectively. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that since the Appellate Tribunal is now seized with the matter specially where the question of jurisdiction has been challenged and notices have been issued with regard to the jurisdiction for 25-10-2000, the DRT, Jaipur, should adjourn the procee-dings pending before it. Being aggrieved by the proceedings pending before the Tribunal, New Delhi, the Bank has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also filed. In addition to the reply an application for adjournment was also filed by the respondents/defendants before the Tribunal. In the application for adjournment, it has been specifically raised that the question of jurisdiction does not lie with the DRT, Jaipur, as the parties themselves have entered into agreement whereby they have conferred jurisdiction to Delhi Courts only. According to the respondents, the question of jurisdiction has to be decided first and specially when there is a specific agreement to this effect and therefore, no evidence is required. Therefore, the direction issued by the DRT with regard to the jurisdiction that the question of jurisdiction would be decided after obtaining pleadings of both the parties is not legal and correct. Since the Appellate Tribunal is now seized with the matter and specially when the question of jurisdiction has been challenged, and a notice had been issued with regard to the jurisdiction. It is submitted by Shri R.K. Anand, Sr. Advocate that it would be appropriate if the Tribunal is directed to adjourn the matter and take up the same after the Appellate Tribunal would hear and decide the matter. In the reply it is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to at New Delhi and loan facilities were also availed from New Delhi Branch of the Bank only and hence, the Tribunal at Jaipur has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application filed by the Bank. It was prayed that the Tribunal should pass an order rejecting the plaint/application for want of jurisdiction and vacate interim order passed by the Tribunal on 26-6-2000 and pass appropriate further orders. We have perused the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, dated 6-9-2000. The Tribunal, for the reasons recorded, has opined that no case is made out to vacate the order passed by the Tribunal on 26-6-2000 under which the Tribunal had restrained the defendants only regarding defendant No. 1 s movable and immovable properties which were mortgaged/hypothecated to the Bank. By order dated 5-7-2000, the Tribunal has ordered that the order of jurisdiction will be decided after obtaining pleas of both the parties i.e. after filing of the written statement by the defendants and that the question of jurisdiction will be determined after framing of issue on this point. As already noticed, the appeals were filed against the said order in the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi." It is also seen from the proceedings of the Tribunal, dated 5-7-2000 that the respondents sought time to file reply to the original application. It is also seen that on the first date of appearance, the respondents raised the dispute regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Jaipur to entertain the application. According to the respondents, all the documents pertaining to the said credit facilities were executed at Delhi and despite admitting fact that there is a specific agreement with regard to the jurisdiction, the Tribunal had failed to decide the issue of jurisdiction first, which is contrary to the laws. Therefore, Shri Anand submitted that the question of jurisdiction ought to have been decided first. We see much force and substance in the said submission of Shri Anand. It is settled law that parties to an agreement can mutually choose and agree for adjudication of their disputes to a particular court if different courts have jurisdiction to try and entertain the disputes inter se the parties. It is also settled law that the parties who have signed the agreement are bound by that agreement. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Jaipur to decide the question of its territorial jurisdiction within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The parties to the action are permitted to file additional written pleas in support of their contentions in regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It shall be filed immediately without any further loss of time. The Tribunal shall decide the jurisdiction issue as already indicated, within the time stipulated above. In the meanwhile, interim order passed by the DRT, Jaipur shall be in force. Likewise, the order passed by this Court staying proceedings which are pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in Appeal No. 191/2000 shall also be in force till the disposal of the decision in regard to the jurisdiction issue. The Debt Recovery Tribunal is directed to proceed now only with regard to the jurisdiction issue and proceed further to decide the case on merits subject to the final out-come of the order that may be passed. In view of the above direction, there is no need or necessity to refer to the decisions cited by Shri Paras Kuhad contending that every order will not include the interim order etc. Though, some judgments w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
