IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction to entertain application for recovery of debt would lie before DRT only if value of such debt is of an amount not less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.

Vikash Jain, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition questions the validity of the order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’) under Section 31-A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RDB Act’) in relation to a decree of the Civil Court, the latter having been passed after commencement of the said RDB Act.

3. The short facts of the case are that a cash credit limit of Rs. 2,00,000/- was sanctioned by the respondent-Bank which was later enhanced to Rs. 3,60,000/- in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner along with guarantors executed the necessary documents such as Deed of Hypothecation, Deed of Guarantee, Demand Promissory Notes etc. in order to secure the due repayment of the cash credit. The petitioner’s business suffered considerable loss leading to default in repayment of the loan. The respondent-Bank filed Title Mortgage Suit No. 276 of 2003 for realization of dues of Rs. 5,89,439.62 which was allowed in terms of judgment dated 28.11.2005 together with interest pendente lite and future till realization mentioned in D.P. note, within three months. Accordingly, a preliminary decree was drawn up. In order to realize and recover the decretal amount, the respondent-Bank filed an Original Application (Execution) Case No. 02 of 2009 for realization of an amount of Rs. 17,19,682.47 inclusive of the accrued interest. The original application was allowed upon rejection of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and a recovery certificate for Rs. 17,19,682.47 was issued by the DRT.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 08.09.2009 passed by the DRT is wholly without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. A bare reading of the said order discloses that the DRT has proceeded to entertain the Bank’s Original Application (Execution) with reference to Section 31-A of the RDB Act which is in terms not applicable in the instant case. The said provision permits filing of an application before the DRT only in cases where a decree or order was passed by the Court before the commencement of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amendment Act) and had remained to be executed. It is a matter of record that the judgment and decree on the basis of which recovery is sought to be made was passed on 28.11.2005 in Title Mortgage Suit No. 276 of 2003 i.e. much after coming into effect of the Amendment Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Rai Bareja and another vs. Punjab National Bank and others, (2007) 2 SCC 230 rendered in the context of Section 31 of the RDB Act, wherein the basic rule of literal interpretation has been reiterated. It is further submitted that the DRT has proceeded to straightway issue a certificate for recovery of the amount mentioned in the original application, namely Rs. 17,19,682.47, without appreciating that the judgment and decree of the Court did not specify the rate of interest to be charged on the decretal amount and was to be applied as per D.P. note. In the instant case, the petitioner and guarantors had executed a demand promissory note on 19.09.1995 for Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 14% per annum. Later on, they executed a second demand promissory note on 27.03.1997 for Rs. 3,60,000/- together with interest @ 19.75% per annum. It is submitted that the DRT therefore ought to have considered the validity and correctness of the calculation of interest sought to be recovered by the Bank against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, opposes the writ petition and submits that the DRT has acted within its jurisdiction and rightly issued the recovery certificate. It is submitted that in the instant case, it is immateria