The finality of judgments and the binding effect of a Division Bench judgment were central to the court's decision.

( 1 ) THE state bank of hyderabad has filed this petition against the interim Order passed by the debts recovery tribunal, bangalore, on la. No. 5, dated 31-7-1998 and confirmed by the debts recovery appellate tribunal, Bombay in appeal No. 354 of 1998.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner filed an application before the debts recovery tribunal in o. a. No. 725 of 1997 against respondents 4 to 8 for recovery of a sum of rs. 48,00,205/ -. The bank also obtained an interim Order dated 7-7-1997 under which the singareni collieries company limited, 10th respondent herein was directed to deposit a sum of rs. 9,98,000/- with the bank. Meanwhile, one Sri G. Sambaiah Claiming to be the creditor of one m. Krishna reddy, 2nd respondent before the tribunal, had obtained a prohibitory Order in o. s. No. 1183 of 1997 in the city civil court, hyderabad, against the very singareni collieries under Order 38, rule 5 of the cpc not to part with the said money. Since there were two conflicting orders, the said singareni collieries filed a writ petition in 29180 of 1997 before the High Court of andhra pradesh against the state bank of hyderabad and other respondents for a direction to obey which of the conflicting orders. Learned single judge of the andhra pradesh High Court by his Order dated 18-2-1998 directed singareni collieries to deposit the amount with the writ petitioner's bank who in turn was directed to invest the money in term deposit for a period of 45 days and renewed periodically; the disbursement of the said amount should await the final orders of the debts recovery tribunal; the said g. Sambaiah aggrieved by the said Order filed w. a. No. 546 of 1998 before the division bench of andhra pradesh High Court. The division bench, by its Order dated 9-4-1998, set aside the Order of the learned single judge and directed the said g. Sambaiah to make necessary application before the debts recovery tribunal regarding his claim in Order to resolve the conflict. In pursuance of the Order of the division bench, the said g. Sambaiah filed i. a. No. 5 as stated, before the debts recovery tribunal. The writ petitioner herein who was a party to the proceedings before the andhra pradesh High Court, both before the learned single judge as well as the division bench, surprisingly without filing any written objections to la. No. 5, it appears, argued that la. No. 5 was not maintainable on the ground that under the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, there was no scope for third parties to make such an application and the tribunal had no jurisdiction whatsoever. The said objection was overruled by the tribunal holding that, having regard to the provisions of the cpc, application was maintainable.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, bank filed an appeal before the debts recovery appellate tribunal, Bombay. The appellate tribunal also agreed with the reasoning of the tribunal and dismissed the appeal. These two orders are challenged on the same grounds raised before the tribunals below.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank in this court is, the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 is only meant for the benefit of financial institutions or banking institutions and no third party is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the tribunal for any Order in his favour. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court (Allahabad Bank v Canara Bank and another) and the madras High Court (Ms. Nivedita and others v South Indian Bank Limited and others), in that regard and contended that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain la. No. 5.

( 5 ) IT is unnecessary to go into this contention as in my view, the matter is concluded by the division bench judgment of the andhra pradesh High Court which was passed in the appeal filed by Sri G. Sambaiah, the applicant in la. No. 5 against the petitioner-bank herein. The division bench of the andhra pradesh High Court has held, after se