Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 589 (DEL)

SURINDER MOHAN NAYYAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-07-25

ARIJIT PASAYAT, MANMOHAN SARIN

body2000
Arijit Pasayat ( 1 ) THE only question that is mooted in the writ petition is whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal in short the "tribunal" has jurisdiction to entertain execution proceedings in respect of decrees passed prior to coming into force of the Recovery of debts dut to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (in short the Act) ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is impermissible, Learned counsel for the respndents with reference to Sections 17, 18 and 25 of the Act submitted that it is permissibl. with reference to Sections 17 and 18 of the Act the Apex court in Allahabad Bank V. Canara Bank d Another JT 2000 (4) SC 411 observed as follows : . . . . . . . . . . . . XXXX. . . . . . . . . . . . . It is clear from Section 17 of the Act that the Tribunal is to decide the applications of the Banks and Financial Institutions for recovery of debts due to them. We have already referred to the definition of debt in Section 2 (g) as amended by Ordinance 1/2000. It includes "claims" by Banks and financial institutions and includes the liabi. ity in curred and also liability under a decrce or othewise. In this context section 31 of the act is also relevant. That Section deals with transfer of pending suits of proceedings in to the Tribunal. In our view, the word Proceedings in Section 31 includes an exaction proceeedings pending before a Civil Court before the commencement of the act. The suits and proceedings so pending on the date of the Act stand transferred to the Tribunal and have to be dispoded of "in the same manner" as application under Section 19". ( 3 ) IT was held that jurisdiction of the Tribunal in regard to adjudication is exclusive. The Tribunal alone is to decide matters relating to recovery of debts due lo hanks or financial institutions. Once Tribunal passes an order that the debt is due, the Tribunal has to issue certificate under Section 19 (22) (formerly under Section 19 (7) to the Recovery Officer lor recovery of the debt specified in the certificate, It was there -. . Once Tribunal passes an order that the debt is due, the Tribunal has to issue certificate under Section 19 (22) (formerly under Section 19 (7) to the Recovery Officer lor recovery of the debt specified in the certificate, It was there -. . lore held lhal provisions of Sections 17 and IS of the Act arc exclusive, so far as the question of ad|udication ol the liability of the defendant is concerned. In any event, Section 31-A has been introduced in the Act by Section 14 of the Amendment Act 2000 with effect from 17-1-2000. The said provision reads as follows:- 31 A- Power of Tribunal to issue certificate of recovery in case of decree or order not executed:- (1) Where a decree or order has been passed by any Court before the commencement of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (Amendment) Ordinance, 2000 and has not yet been executed, then, the decree-holder may apply to the Tribunal to pass an order for recovery of the amount. (2) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may issue a certificate of recovery to a Recovery Officer. . (3) On receipt of a certificate under sub-section (2), the Recovery Officer shall proceed to recover the amount as if it was a certificate in respect of a debt recoverable under this Act. "above being the position the inevitable conclusion is that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with execution proceedings initialed prior to introduction of the Act. ( 4 ) IT is staled by learned counsel for ihe petitioner that he wants to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, DOS (in short the CPC ). We do not express any opinion regarding the maintainability of the petition, as the forum where it filed shall consider that aspect. ( 5 ) PETITION stands disposed of accordingly.