The jurisdiction of the DRT to entertain any dispute regarding recovery of debts by the Bank is exclusive, and no Court shall entertain such claim of the Bank.

S. K. MOOKHERJEE,J.

( 1 ) -THE main question that was raised by the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal was whether an application pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") would be directed to be stayed either under the provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under the inherent power of the Court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in view of a suit pending in this Court which was filed prior to the institution of the Application under the Act. The main question that was raised by the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal was whether an application pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") would be directed to be stayed either under the provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under the inherent power of the Court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in view of a suit pending in this Court which was filed prior to the institution of the Application under the Act.

( 2 ) TO decide this question we like to state the facts which would be required. The opposite party/respondent herein Smt. Sulochana Devi Jalan in the year 1991 instituted a suit in the Original Side of this Court against the Vijaya Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant"), inter alia, for a decree for a sum of Rs. 80,85,000/- and for other incidental reliefs. In the aforesaid suit, it has been alleged in the plaint that the appellant arbitrarily and capriciously and in breach of its duty reduced overdraft facilities and imposed conditions as to the working capital of the respondent thereby wrongfully preventing the respondent from carrying on her business and in consequence thereof the respondent was compelled to suspend her business and suffer loss and damages. In the aforesaid suit, the appellant has already entered appearance and filed its written statement denying the material allegations made in the plaint. When this suit was pending the appellant instituted a suit for a decree for a sum of Rs. 57,18,64. 84 against the respondent jointly and severely and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit being Title Suit No. 116 of 1993 the said Act was enacted and pursuant to the provisions of the section 31 of the said Act, the said suit was transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta and the same has been registered as T. A. No. 47 of 1994 by the said Tribunal. An attempt was made by the plaintiff/respondent to transfer the aforesaid application being registered as T. A. No. 47 of 1994 now pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta from it to this Court by making an application under clause 13 of the Letters Patent. A learned Judge of this Court, however, rejected the said application filed under clause 13 of the Letters Patent. An appeal was carried to a Division Bench of this Court against the aforesaid order of the learned trial Judge. The appeal is now pending decision, but the prayer for interim relief was refused. The plaintiff/respondent thereafter made an application in this Court praying that the proceedings being T. A. No. 47 of 1994 now pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal shall remain stayed till the disposal of the suit filed by the plaintiff being suit No. 572 of 1991 on the ground that as the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was prior to the filing of the proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal being T. A. No. 47 of 1994 and the issues involved in the aforesaid two proceedings were same, and, therefore, the Court shall pass an order of stay of the pending proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal till the suit being Suit No. 572 of 1991 pending in this Court is decided and disposed of. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the said prayer of the plaintiff/r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document