9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1475X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank as defined under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act – Held that:- respondent 1 filed the original application, the DRT had jurisdiction to entertain it. Respondent 1 had substantive right to claim the amount. It cannot be denied to it because it has surrendered it’s licence during the pendency of the original application. Surrender of the banking licence does not extinguish the petitioners’ liability. Respondent 1 cannot be denied relief because of the subsequent event since at the date of the institution of the suit, it had a substantive right to claim the relief. petition is, therefore, dismissed - WRIT PETITION NO. 1642 OF 2003 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2011 - MRS. RANJANA DESAI AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application. The Presiding Officer by his order dated 13-3-2003 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( the DRAT ). By order dated 30-5-2003, the DRAT dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 4. We have heard, at some length, Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Counsel submitted that respondent 1 having surrendered its licence, it was no longer a bank for the purpose of RDDB Act. Counsel pointed out that under section 2( d )( i ) of the RDDB Act, bank means a banking company. Section 2( e ) thereof, defines banking company . It says that banking company shall have the meaning assigned to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cence, the Reserve Bank of India had allowed respondent 1 to open Special Rupee Account with a bank inter alia for crediting the recovered loan amounts. The affidavit of Mr. C.G. Pradeep Kumar, Head - Credit Administration of respondent 1 discloses that the petitioners have admitted in the Restructuring Agreement dated 22-9-1999 that as on 16-8-1999, a sum of Rs. 12,31,45,872 towards principal amount and an amount of Rs. 2,04,19,983 towards interest is due and payable by the petitioners to respondent 1. 7. Having ascertained the facts, we shall now go to the law point raised by the petitioners which, in our opinion, is clearly covered by the Supreme Court s judgment in Carona Ltd. ( supra ). 8. In Carona Ltd. s case ( supra ) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y was a tenant; that the Rent Act was not applicable and that the tenancy was legally and validly terminated and the defendant is liable to be evicted. The appellate court of the Small Causes Court confirmed the said decree. A writ petition carried from the said order was dismissed by the High Court. It was, inter alia, urged before the Supreme Court that the fact as to paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more of a company is a jurisdictional fact and in absence of such fact, the trial court had no jurisdiction to proceed on the basis that Rent Act is not applicable. 9. The Supreme Court agreed with the submission of learned counsel that the fact as to paid up share capital of a company can be said to be a preliminary o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity justified bending the rules of procedure where no specific provisions or fairplay is violated with a view to promoting substantial justice subject to the absence of other dis-entitling circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful the court can, and in many cases, must take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. 10. After noting these observations made in Pasupuleti Venkates Warlu s case ( supra ) on which reliance was placed by the appellant therein, in Carona Ltd. s case ( supra ) the Supreme Court observed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... There is no dispute about the fact that when respondent 1 filed the original application, the DRT had jurisdiction to entertain it. Respondent 1 had substantive right to claim the amount. It cannot be denied to it because it has surrendered it s licence during the pendency of the original application. Surrender of the banking licence does not extinguish the petitioners liability. Respondent 1 cannot be denied relief because of the subsequent event since at the date of the institution of the suit, it had a substantive right to claim the relief. In any case, as observed by the Supreme Court, subsequent events may be taken into account to promote substantive justice and on equitable considerations. Surely, by ousting DRT s jurisdiction, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
