The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Court to issue directions to the Court Receiver ceased after the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force, and the Court Receiver's authority was subject to the directions of the Debts Recovery Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal.

JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---This reference to a larger Bench has been made to resolve the conflict of opinion between two learned Single Judges of this Court in a matter arising under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The facts pertaining to the Chamber Summons are not very material for the determination of the controversy before us. However, in order to understand the controversy, we have formulated the following issues, on which there appears to be conflict, and which need resolution :---

"(a) Whether this Court would continue to have jurisdiction to issue directions to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, after the coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, even in cases where the Court Receiver, High Court, was appointed as Receiver in Suits falling within the purview of section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ?

(b) Whether, in such matters, Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay would continue to act as Court Receiver and, if so, from whom should the Court Receiver seek directions with regard to the discharge of his/her duties ?

(c) Necessary consequential directions with regard to how the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay should proceed ?"

2. Broadly indicated, the facts of the Chamber Summons are as under :-

By an order made by this Court in Suit No. 954 of 1997, the Court Receiver, High Court was appointed as Receiver in respect of a tea estate situated in Wynad, Kerala, sometime in the year 1987. Sometime in the year 1990, M/s. T.P. Murlidharan and Associates, a partnership firm, was appointed as Agent of the Court Receiver, High Court, under an agreement of agency. On 19th October, 1992, the agency agreement was terminated by the Court Receiver on the ground of persistent breaches. On the report of the court Receiver, this Court made an order on 30th April, 1993 appointing M/s. Travancore Malabar Estate as agent of the Court Receiver. M/s. T.P. Murlidharan and Associates, however, continued to act as Court Receiver's agent during the period between 19th October, 1992 to 30th April, 1993. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "RDB Act, 1993") was brought into force with effect from 24th June, 1993. By virtue of section 18 of the RDB Act, 1992, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction of all other courts and authorities in relation to matters specified in section 17 of the RDB Act, 1993 is barred. Section 17 invests exclusive jurisdiction in the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the RDB Act, 1993 to entertain and decide applications from Banks and Financial Institutions for recovery of "debts" due to the Banks and Financial Institutions, expression "debt" being defined in section 2(g) of the RDB Act, 1993. Section 31 of the RDB Act, 1993 also provides that all cases pending before any Court immediately before the coming into force of the RDB Act, 1993, whether a suit or other proceeding, the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have to be exclusively tried by the Tribunal under the RDB Act, 1993, shall stand transferred on the appointed date to such Tribunal. The only exception made is in the case of Appeals pending before the Court. As a consequence of the coming into force of the RDB Act, 1993, the suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and on 19th July, 2000 the Debts Recovery Tribunal decreed the claim in the suit. It also directed sale of the concerned tea estate of which Receiver had been appointed. On 13th September, 2000, Chamber Summons No. 1047 of 2000 was moved before this Court for a direction to be issued to the Court Receiver, High Court, to expedite the sale of the Suit tea estate on or before 20th October, 2000. By an order made on 20th October, 2000, a learned Single Judge of this Court (R.J. Kochar, J.) made the Chamber Summons absolute with no order as to costs. Pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document