The main legal point established in the judgment is that the DRT within whose jurisdiction the cause of action had arisen, either wholly or in part, would have jurisdiction to entertain the application for the recovery of debts.

1. Appellant-Bank of Rajasthan filed O.A. No. 408/2000 before Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as `the DRT'), Jaipur, for the recovery of money against defendants 1 to 4 therein. The 5th defendant is another Bank and is stated to have a charge over the property mentioned in Schedule `A' to the Original Application (hereinafter referred to as `the O.A.'). The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement, alleging, among other things, that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of DRT. Jaipur and, therefore, the appellant-Bank cannot maintain the proceedings before the said DRT. They had also moved an application challenging the jurisdiction of the DRT. Therefore, Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur, considered the question of territorial jurisdiction and decided by the order dated 5.7.2001 that except the sanction, entire transaction took place at Chennai and, therefore, the DRT had no jurisdiction to decide the O.A. He, therefore, directed the O.A. to be returned to the appellant-Bank for presentation before proper Forum. It is against this order dated 5.7.2001, that the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 have not chosen to contest this appeal and the 5th respondent, though a formal party, and was represented by Counsel in the earlier stages, was not represented at the time of the final arguments. Therefore, I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records on file.

3. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the DRT, Jaipur has jurisdiction to entertain the O.A.?

4. In order to take a decision on this question, it is necessary to refer to certain allegations in the O.A. with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The appellant, as the applicant before the DRT, has alleged that the Ist defendant applied to the applicant-Bank for the credit facilities, which were sanctioned by the applicant-Bank on 27.3.1995 at its Central Office situated in Jaipur, which was further revised on 12.5.1997 and 29.9.1998 at Jaipur, within the jurisdiction of DRT, Jaipur. The applicant-Bank has also stated that DRT, Jaipur has jurisdiction on the basis of the common law rule that the debtor should find the creditor and pay the debts where the creditor resides, that the registered office of the applicant is situated at Udaipur while the Central Office is situated at Jaipur and, therefore, DRT, Jaipur has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the O.A. As pointed already, the defendants 1 to 3 pleaded before the DRT, Jaipur that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the O.A.

5. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, Jaipur observed that the entire transaction, except the sanction, took place at Chennai, that the documents were executed at Chennai, that the parties are residing and working at Chennai, that the loan was also disbursed at Chennai and, therefore, the DRT, Jaipur had no jurisdiction.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant first of all referred to the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1993') which reads as follows :

"19. Application to the Tribunal. - (1) Where a Bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.,-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries, on business, or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly of in part, arises."

7. By relying upon the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 19, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that however