Important Point
The expression ‘debt’ defined in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions) Act has to be given the widest amplitude to mean any liability which is alleged as due from any person by a Bank during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank either in cash or otherwise, legally recoverable on the date of application.

Headnote:Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993-Section 2(g) read with Section 17(1)-Jurisdiction of Tribunal-Suit by Bank prior to coming into force of Act-Transfer to Tribunal-Defendant’s plea Tribunal has no jurisdiction as suit was for damages which could not be said to be debt due to Bank-High Court holding that suit was for damages and compensation which required to be quantified before decree and such a suit would not be within purview of provision of Act-Not correct-Entire averments in plaint has to be looked into-Averments in plaint showed claim made by plaintiff essentially one for recovery of debts due-Expression ‘debt’ defined in Act wider than general meaning of debt-Expression ‘debt’ has to be given widest amplitude to mean any liability which is alleged as due from any person by a bank during course of any business activity undertaken by Bank.
       Held : The expression ‘debt’ has been defined in the Act in question though the general meaning of ‘debt’ may be of a persuasive value in interpreting the expression ‘debt’ in the Act but it is too well settled that where an expression in any Act has been defined, the said expression will have the same meaning and is not necessary to find out what is the general meaning of the expression. (Para 9)
       In the case in hand, there cannot be any dispute that the expression ‘debt’ has to be given the widest amplitude to mean any liability which is alleged as due from any person by a bank during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank either in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, whether payable under a decree or order of any court or otherwise and legally recoverable on the date of the application. In ascertaining the question whether any particular claim of any bank or financial institution would come within the purview of the tribunal created under the Act, it is imperative that the entire averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint have to be looked into and then find out whether notwithstanding the specially created tribunal having been constituted, the averments are such that it is possible to hold that the jurisdiction of such tribunal is ousted. With the aforesaid principle in mind, on examining the averments made in the plaint, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the claim in question made by the plaintiff is essentially one for recovery of a debt due to it from the defendants and, therefore, it is the tribunal which has the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute and not the ordinary civil court. In this view of the matter the High Court was in error to hold that the dispute in question is not entertainable by the tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. (Para 11)

Judgment

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant, United Bank of India filed a suit in the High Court of Calcutta which was registered as Suit No. 276 of 1991, claiming different reliefs against the three defendants. While the suit was pending, the Parliament enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to provide for the establishment of tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act came into force on 24th of June, 1993. By operation of Section 31 of the Act, the suit in question stood transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, established under the Act and was renumbered as Transferred Application No. 163 of 1996. The respondents moved an application before the tribunal, contending thereunder that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain suit in question in view of the nature of the reliefs prayed for and as such, plaint should be returned to the plaintiffs for being filed in the High Court itself. The tribunal disposed of the applications filed by the defendants holding that the tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the claim of the plaintiff. The three defendants, thereafter filed three separate applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders passed by the tribunal. By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the order of the tribunal on a finding that under the Act, the tribunal gets jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions but the plaintiff’s claim in question cannot be held to be a ‘debt’ as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act inasmuch as the claim is of an undetermined sum, which is required to be ascertained upon an inquiry to be conducted by the tribunal. The High Court was also of the view that the suit as framed, is one for damages and compensation which is required to be quantified before a decree to be passed and such a suit will not be within the purview of the provisions of the Act in question. With these conclusions, the applications of the defendants having been allowed, the plaintiff has approached this court.

3. Mr. G.L. Sanghi, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the plaintiff-appellant contends that the plaint read as a whole on the basis of averments made and the reliefs sought for, it cannot be held to be a suit for damages but on the other hand, it is essentially a suit for realisation of money due to a bank which has become due in course of the business activity undertaken by the bank and as such it is a suit for recovery of a debt under Section 2(g) of the Act and the High Court committed error in holding that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. Mr. Sanghi, further contended that while deciding the question as to whether the claim in question can be adjudicated upon by the tribunal constituted under the Act, the substance of the matter has to be looked into. According to Mr. Sanghi, a suit for recovery of debt from one of the defendants does not cease to become so merely because certain ancillary and incidental relief has been sought for against some other defendants. Mr. Sanghi, lastly urged that the very purpose and object of the Act will be frustrated if the suit in question is not allowed to be disposed of by the tribunal constituted under the Act and on the other hand is relegated to the ordinary civil court as has been ordered by the High Court in the impugned judgment. According to Mr. Sanghi, the expression ‘debt’ in Section 2(g) is of wide amplitude and there should be no justification to give a narrower meaning and thereby limiting the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

4. Mr. Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the defendants on the other hand contended that the plaintiff’s claim is one for damages and compensati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 457

Cases Referred (3)