JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The above chamber summonses are the offshoot in the Suit No. 954 of 1987. I am called upon to decide the above chamber summonses when the suit itself, being a Bank Suit, has stood transferred from this Court to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.) established under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (R.D.D.B.F.I., Act) on and from 16-12-1999. A very strange and curious situation has arisen before me. The main suit proceedings are not in my hands while its offshoots are praying for appropriate orders at my hands. Though this Court has no 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 this Court is called upon to decide the above chamber summonses taken out as interlocutory proceedings in the above suit which has already been transferred to the D.R.T. as contemplated under section 17 and section 18 read with section 31 of the R.D.D.B.F.I., Act.

2. The reason for this situation is that by an order dated 3-4-1987 this Court had appointed High Court Receiver, High Court Bombay in respect of the suit property viz. Tea Estate in Kerala, which was mortgaged as security with the plaintiffs Bank by the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the loan advanced by the bank to the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs have filed the above suit for recovery of the said debt. The appointment of the Court Receiver was confirmed and by an order of injunction the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were restrained from creating a third party interest in the Tea Estate. On and from 25-4-1990 M/s. T.P. Murlidharan and Associates were appointed as the Agent of the Court Receiver for a period of eight years. The said agent appear to have floated a company by name Premier Plantation Limited on 12-12-1990. It appears that on account of their failure to make payment, by an order dated 19-10-1992 this Court directed the said Premier Plantation Limited to deliver the possession of the Tea Estate to the Court Receiver. During this period some changes in the structure of the company have taken place. It further appears that one M/s. Travancore Malabar Estate was appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver for a period of two years till 25-6-1999 and the said agency continued till expiry of further three months to enable the Court Receiver to invite fresh bids for the agency.

3. In Chamber Summons No. 1047 of 2000 the plaintiffs have prayed from this Court the following orders to the Court Receiver :

"(a) The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, Receiver in H.C. Suit No. 954 of 1987 be ordered and directed to sell and/or dispose of the suit tea estate more particularly described in the Schedule annexed and marked Exhibit "A" hereto.

(b) The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, Receiver in H.C. Suit No. 954 of 1987 be ordered and directed to complete the sale of the said suit tea estate expeditiously and on or before 20th October, 2000."

In support of the Chamber Summons a detailed affidavit of one Shri B.M. Chhabra has been filed. The plaintiffs have relied on a judgment and order dated 19-7-2000 passed by the D.R.T. determining the whole debt payable by the defendants 1 to 4 to the Bank and directing the defendants to pay the same and granting the Bank a recovery certificate for the detailed claim computed by the tribunal. It was also held by the Tribunal that if the defendants failed to make payment of the amounts mentioned in the Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the order the Bank was entitled to sell the Tea Estate through the Court Receiver, High Court and it further directed the bank to approach this Court for necessary direction to the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay for conducting the sale if required. It also directed that the sale proceeds be appropriated towards the amount due under the Recovery Certificate. I am informed across the bar that the defendants have filed an appeal against th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document