9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Rs. 36,20,722.92 from the petitioner. On coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1973 ( the Act ) the suit stood transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal where it was registered as O.A. No. 913 of 1995. 3. It appears that the appellants moved an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for transfer of the case to this Court. The application was rejected on 2-7-1996 with the observation that such an objection, if any, be raised in the written statement. Consequently, the appellants raised the objection in their reply that because of the averments made in the plaint by the bank and the reliefs claimed therein, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the petition. On 18-5-1998 when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bt, the suit was exclusively triable by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The learned single Judge in the impugned order observed that the claim squarely falls within the ambit of the term debt , therefore, the dispute has necessarily to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal by virtue of section 18 of the Act. Thus, the suit was ordered to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal with a request to the Tribunal to review the legal position once again. Objection of the learned counsel for the appellant was also considered that the order passed on 28-7-1998 by the Tribunal was appealable and since no appeal had been filed by the bank against the said order, the same had attained finality and till such order was not set aside, it was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s expressly ousted by section 18. In such eventuality, we do not find any fault in the reasonings adopted by the learned single Judge in the impugned order saying : "Being of the unequivocal view that the suit is now, after the abandonment of the relief of specific performance, essentially is for the recovery of a debt, on the strength of the authority of the Apex Court in the United Bank of India s case ( supra ), I must hold that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter/lis. The incidence and consequence of arriving at this conclusion is that the case and dispute cannot be tried by a civil court and has to be transferred, at least out of this Court because of section 18 of the Act." In view of the aforementioned observations, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to have proceeded to quash and set aside the order dated 28-7-1998 passed by the Tribunal, which was not only contrary to the law but was passed on an erroneous factual matrix. The order was passed by the Tribunal on the assumption that the suit still was for grant of a decree for specific performance, which it was not. That relief had already been given up by the bank prior to 28-7-1998. Suit was only for recovery of debt, which suit was exclusively triable by the Tribunal. We are in full agreement with what has been stated on the legal proposition in Shoes East Ltd. s case ( supra ). In view of the settled position of law that availability of a statutory remedy of appeal or other proceedings is one of the factors to be taken into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
