JUDGMENT - GOKHALE H.L., J.:---This is an appeal by original defendant No. 1 against an order dated 6th July, 2000 passed by a Single Judge of this Court dismissing the notice of motion taken out by the said defendant No. 1. The said notice of motion prayed for the dismissal of the suit filed by respondent No. 1 herein (original plaintiff) by contending that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and/or to pass any appropriate orders therein. The appellants and respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are defendants in that suit (though respondent No. 5 has been subsequently deleted for the purposes of this appeal).

2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-

The appellant is a public limited company. On 28th April, 1997, it came out with a Public Issue of 33,45,000 Secured Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFDC) of Rs. 200/- each at a discounted price of Rs. 160/-. These debenture were issued to the banks, mutual funds, financial institutions, including the respondent No. 1 and individual subscribers herein some times in June 1997. On 23rd October, 1997, a Debenture Trust Deed was executed between the appellants and respondent No. 1 appointing respondent No. 1 as the Trustee for the debentureholders in respect of the above debentures issued by the appellants. The Trust Deed recorded the terms and conditions of this trusteeship including the remuneration therefor. According a Trusteeship Agreement was executed between the appellants and the respondent No. 1 on 24th October, 1997.

3. Subsequently a portion of these debentures of aggregate nominal value of Rs. 4,65,62,600/- was converted into equity shares. The balance non-convertible portion aggregating to Rs. 62,24,37,400/- was to be redeemed in three instalments i.e. on 17th June, 2000, 17th June, 2001 and lastly on 17th June, 2002 respectively. Since there was default in honouring the first instalment itself, respondent No. 1 claimed the outstanding principal amount i.e. Rs. 62,24,37,400/- along with interest thereon and remuneration of Rs. 55,252/- and filed a suit to claim the total amount of Rs. 79,92,08,074/-. They also prayed for enforcement and the realisation of the securities charged to the debentureholders. They took out a Notice of Motion bearing No. 1649 of 2000 for interim reliefs. A reply was filed by the appellants thereto. At that stage the present Notice of Motion bearing No. 1921 of 2000 was taken out by the appellants on 3rd July, 2000 raising a preliminary issue of jurisdiction under section 9-A of the Civil Procedure Code (as applicable in State of Maharashtra) contending that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try the said suit. It was submitted that the suit was filed for recovery of the amounts above Rs. 10 lakhs allegedly due to the debenture holders and respondent No. 1 and other banks and financial institutions and the said suit was barred in view of the provisions of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "RDB Act"). The motion was opposed by respondent No. 1 herein by filing a reply and the matter was argued, and the learned Single Judge passed an order on 6th July, 2000 dismissing the motion holding that this Court does have jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.

4. It was principally contended on behalf of the appellants that the suit claim was essentially a claim to recover a "debt" falling within the definition of "debt" under section 2(g) of the RDB Act. It was submitted that since the amount had become payable to the respondent No. 1 during the course of its business activities, the concept of debt has to be given a wider meaning to give full force to the purpose of the Act. A Tribunal had been specifically constituted under the provisions of the RDB Act to speedily recover the debts due to the bank and financial institutions. The Tribunal had been conferred with the jurisdiction and the powers and autho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document