The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the court to consider subsequent events and apply the law as it stands at the time of the judgment, particularly in relation to jurisdictional issues.

SOUMEN SEN, J.

1 .This is an application by the defendant for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Court is barred by law.

2. The plaintiff is incorporated under the appropriate laws of Netherland.

3. The plaintiff has instituted a suit at an appropriate Court at Belgium and has obtained a money decree against the defendant. The Country of the plaintiff, however, did not have reciprocal treaty with India as a result whereof the plaintiff filed a suit on the basis of the said decree which in fact is an enforcement of the foreign decree in this Court. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant is having properties within the jurisdiction of this Court. The suit was instituted in the year 2005. The original plaintiff namely ABN AMRO Limited was a banking company within the meaning of section 5 (1) (c) of The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as The Regulation Act) and was carrying on its banking business in India on the basis of a license granted by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 22 of the said Regulation Act. The said bank had merged with the Royal Bank of Scottland N.V. in 2007 and thereafter by reason of amendment to the Articles of Association on 26th April, 2018, the plaintiff is now known as Natwest Markets N.V. The articles of association of the plaintiff company would show that the said plaintiff does not carry on banking business at all in India. The plaintiff has been excluded from the second schedule to the Reserve Bank of India 1934 by reason of a notification dated 28th February, 2017 published in the gazette of India on 6th May, 2017.

4. However, the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit was a scheduled bank under Section 42 and Section 2(e) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 until the name of the plaintiff was excluded by the recent notification.

5. The basis of the application for rejection of the plaint is that on the date of institution of the suit this Court does not have any jurisdiction as it is a debt within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution Act 1993 and the appropriate forum would be the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

6. Mr. Ajoy Krishna Chatterjee, the learned Senior Counsel representing the defendant had submitted that it is well settled that the rights of the parties have to be decided on the date when a proceeding is initiated by the forum created for adjudication of the dispute and any subsequent legislation by which such forum is denuded of its jurisdiction would not cure the initial defect of lack of jurisdiction when such lis is filed before a forum not empowered to decide such dispute at the relevant time and in this context Mr. Chatterjee has relied upon Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 and a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. versus Bhajan Kaur & Ors. reported in, AIR (2008) SC 2276 (paragraph 16). It is submitted that in whatever manner the said notification may be read either as a repeal or deletion it has to apply prospectively as Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves a right accrued and/or liability incurred and what it saves is an existing right. The existing right of a party has to be determined on the basis of the statute which was applicable and not under the new one. Mr. Chatterjee has also referred to a Division Bench Judgment of our Court in ‘Punjab National Bank vs. Bengal Potteries Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Ors. reported at, (2008) 4 Cal HN 727’ for the proposition that the Court has no inherent power to transfer this proceeding to the Debt Recovery Tribunal as the suit instituted before this Court is clearly barred by law.

7. Mr. Suman Dutt, learned counsel representing the plaintiff has submitted that the basis of the rejection of the plaint has now become infructuous by reason of the subsequent notification and the Court in order to do substantive justice is required to take into consideration the subsequent events an