JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---This reference has been made to this Bench for resolving a conflict of opinion between different learned Single Judges of this Court on the issue as to whether the execution proceedings pending before this Court are required to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal ("DRT") under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRT Act").

2. Since the issue that is raised is a conflict of opinion as to a legal provision, the facts are not very material. Nontheless this may be pointed out: the plaintiff (Bank of India) obtained a decree in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs against the defendants. The decree was made pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 17th November, 1986 ( per Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar). The plaintiff took out Execution Application No. 20 of 1991 for recovery of the amount due under the decree. When the execution application was taken out, the Prothonotary and Senior Master has some difficulty in dealing with the matter. There was some doubt raised as to whether such an execution application could be taken out in this Court at all. The reason for the doubt is that by an order (dated 3-9-1999 made by Rebello J. in Chamber Summons No. 963 of 1998 in Execution Application No. 2 of 1993 in Hyderabad Civil Suit No. 149 of 1986)1 it has been held that the execution proceedings pending before the High Court were not required to be transferred to D.R.T. as execution would not fall within the definition of "other proceedings" used in section 31(1) of the D.R.T. Act. However, by an order dated 25th October, 1999, Chandrashekhara Das, J., in Suit No. 782 of 1992 [reported in (Bank of Maharashtra v. Konkan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.)2, 2000(2) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)72 : 2000 Bank.J. (Bom.)292 had held that the execution proceedings which were pending before this Court prior to the establishment of the D.R.T. need not be transferred to the D.R.T. Finally, there is also an order of Kapadia, J., dated 3rd March, 2000 in Suit No. 2784 of 1999 [reporter in (I.C.I.C.I. Limited v. Patheja Brothers Forgings Stampings Limited)3, 2000(3) Bom.C.R. 330 : 2000 Bank.J. (Bom.)595] taking the view that all suits, execution proceedings and interim application are required to be transferred to the D.R.T. under the provisions of the D.R.T. Act, 1993. In view of the diverse views of three different learned Judges of this Court, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has been pleased to refer the following issue for the decision of this Division Bench :-

"Whether the execution applications which are filed and pending before this Court be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal?"

4. Prior to the coming into force of the D.R.T. Act, this Court on its Original Side entertained suits and also execution proceedings arising out of decrees made in suits. With effect from 24th June, 1993, Parliament brought the D.R.T. Act into force. The main reason for bringing this statute into force is to ensure that debts due to financial institutions, which were pending in litigation for years together, were recovered speedily. Parliament, therefore, set up a special Tribunal under the Act with elaborate machinery for speedy recovery of debts due to financial institutions.

5. Section 19 of the D.R.T. Act provides that where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the D.R.T. within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or personally works for gain. Certain procedure is prescribed for making applications to the D.R.T. with which we are not concerned. The expression "debt" in section 2(g) was originally defined as under :--

"2(g) "debt" means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is alleged as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken

Click Here to Read the rest of this document