Swatanter Kumar, J.—Leave granted.

2. While pressing into service the definition of the word ‘debt’ appearing in Section 2 (g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short as the ‘Recovery Act’), it is vehemently contended before us that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short the ‘Tribunal’) lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim of the Bank against the appellant. The appellant was neither a borrower nor was there any kind of privity of contract between the two. As such, money claimed from them was not a ‘debt’ and, therefore, rigors of the recovery procedure under the provisions of the Recovery Act could not be enforced against the appellant. This is a submission which, at the first blush, appears to be sound and acceptable. But, once it is examined in some depth and following the settled canons of law, one has to arrive only at a conclusion that the contention is without any substance and merit. At the very outset, as a guiding principle we may refer to the maxim ‘a verbis legis non est recedendum’ but before we proceed to examine the merit or otherwise of the principal contention raised before us, it will be