The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of Section 31 and 31A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 to the execution of a decree passed by the Court.

The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16 April 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' Notice of Motion for dismissal of the execution application on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree passed by this Court on 3 December 2002.

2. The respondent SICOM Ltd. (SICOM) filed a summary suit against the appellants in the year 2000 for recovery of its dues. A decree came to be passed on 3 December 2002 directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,13,46,923/ to SICOM. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (DRT Act) which was enacted in 1993 was brought into force in the State of Maharashtra from 16 July 1999. Further, the notification of SICOM as a financial institution under the DRT Act was issued on 30 April 2004. Hence, when the decree was passed SICOM was not a financial institution and, therefore, not covered by the DRT Act. It is not disputed that the learned Single Judge of this Court passed a decree in favour of SICOM on 3 December 2002. Hence this Court had inherent jurisdiction to try the suit and pass the decree before notification of SICOM as a financial institution under the DRT Act.

3. For the first time SICOM filed the execution application in this Court on 27 February 2012. The appellants took out the Notice of Motion giving rise to the present appeal, for dismissal of the execution application on the ground that in view of the fact that provisions of the DRT Act applied to SICOM from 30 April 2004, no execution application could have been filed before this Court for execution of a decree passed after the date of commencement of DRT Amendment Act, which was 17 January 2000, but prior to 30 April 2004.

4. After considering the provisions of Section 31 and 31A of the DRT Act and after considering the case law cited at the bar, the learned Single Judge took the view that no execution application was pending in this Court when the DRT Act came into force on 16 July 1999 and, therefore, there was no question of transferring the execution application to DRT. The learned Single Judge also took a view that since the decree was not passed prior to commencement of the DRT Amendment Act on 17 January 2000 but was passed on 3 December 2002, Section 31A would not apply and, therefore, SICOM was not required to apply to DRT for execution of the decree passed by the High Court in the year 2002. It is the aforesaid judgment which is challenged in this appeal.

5. Mr. Madon, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the scheme of Section 31 and 31A of the DRT Act has examined by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. In Bank of India Vs. Shree Satya Corporation and Others., 2001 (1) Bom.C.R. 547 a Division Bench of this Court speaking through Justice B.N. Srikrishna traced the history of the DRT Amendment Act of 2000 and the rationale for insertion of Section 31A. After examining the conflict of views prior to the amendment and after considering the judgment dated 3 March 2000 of Justice S.H. Kapadia as a Single Judge in Suit No.2784 of 1999, the Division Bench held that the said judgment of Justice Kapadia correctly lays down the position in law that after coming into force of the DRT Amendment Act, 2000 all proceedings, whether by way of suit, miscellaneous proceedings or execution proceedings, stand transferred to the DRT and that the amendments introduced by the Amendment of 2000, take care of almost all objections against transfer of execution proceedings. The Division Bench further expressed the following opinion :

“In our judgment Section 31A is enacted to apply to all situations except the one where the decree is fully executed meaning that the decretal debt has been recovered and paid over to the decree holder.”

The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that since the DRT Act for the first time became applicable to the SICOM on 30 April 2004 upon notification of SICOM as a financial instituti