JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---The applicant seeks for Judge's order to the effect that the offer dated 5-6-1999 made by M/s. Umang Enterprises for purchase of the suit hypothecated plant machinery stocks and all other movables for Rs. 27,78,600/- be accepted and direct the Receiver to hand over to said M/s. Umang Enterprises all the hypothecated securities lying at the factory of the 1st defendant etc.

2.The matter arises under execution of a decree obtained by the applicant. No one appears for the respondent. During the course of hearing of the application, a question arose as to whether, by virtue of section 31 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks Financial Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter called "the Act" be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal as the amount involved is exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. As per section 18 of the said Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with those matters if the claim involves more than Rs. 10 lacs in respect of the claim of Bank. In this case the claimant is Bank of Maharashtra. So before considering the request of the applicant for issuing the Judges Order, I have to answer this question.

3.The learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. Samdani contended that in execution of a decree even if the decree is more than Rs. 10 lacs, it will not come under the provisions of section 31 of the Act and is not required to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He submits that "other proceeding" appearing in section 31 will not take in the Execution Proceedings. In order to substantiate his argument he brought to my notice various provisions of the Act and tried to demonstrate in the light of section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure that it is not the intention of the Parliament. He contended that if this execution petition is included in the "other proceedings" under section 31, how the Debt Recovery Tribunal execute a decree coming under section 44-A. This circumstances exclude Execution Proceedings by implication in the period of "the other proceedings". According to me this is not a correct approach in interpreting a statute. I shall extract below the relevant provisions of the Act referred to in his submission.

"Section 2(b) : 'application' means an application made to a Tribunal under section 19."

"Section 2(g) : 'debt' means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is alleged as due from any person by a bank or financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or whether payable under a decree or order of any Civil Court or otherwise and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application."

"Section 17 : (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions.

(2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act."

"Section 19 : Application to the Tribunal :

(1) Where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

(2) Every appli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document