IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunal is determined by the location of the cause of action, supported by relevant documentation.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

The revisional application arises out of an order dated March 3, 2023 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short DRAT) in Appeal No.67 of 2018/38 of 2023. The appeal arose out of OA No.89 of 2017.

2. The order impugned has two parts. By the first part of the order, I.A. No.100 of 2023 was allowed and the name of the respondent No.7 was deleted from the array of respondents.

3. The next portion of the order impugned, deals with the propriety and/or the legality of the order dated March 19, 2018 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal III (DRT III) Kolkata, in OA No.89 of 2017.

4. By the order dated March 19, 2018, the learned DRT III, Kolkata, allowed the demurrer application filed by the petitioners, inter alia, holding that the Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original application. It was directed that the papers be returned to the Bank for filing the original application before the DRT Cuttack.

5. Such order was challenged by the opposite party No.1/Bank, before the learned DRAT. According to the learned DRAT, the DRT III Kolkata had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original application. The DRT III, Kolkata, was directed to decide the OA No. 89 of 2017, in accordance with law.

6. The facts are that the petitioner No.1/borrower runs a residential college by the name of Kalinga Bharati Residential College. The said college is affiliated to Utkal University. The petitioner No.1 availed of loan of Rs. 38.50 crores from the opposite party No.1/Bank, during the period 2011-12 to 2013-14. According to the petitioner No.1, an amount of Rs. 30.44 crores (Rs. 13.77 crores towards principal and Rs. 16.67 crores towards interest) had been repaid. The loan facilities were sanctioned by a branch of the opposite party No.1/Bank, situated at Bhubaneswar. The loan agreement was signed at Bhubaneswar by the then Chairman of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.4 took up the charge of the petitioner No.1/trust, as the Chairperson, on April 6, 2017.

7. The college was facing a lot of challenges and the financial position started declining from 2015-16 on-wards. The Bank declared the outstanding loan as a Non-performing Asset (in short NPA) during the year 2015-16. The Bank pressurized the Chairman to sell out the building situated at Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar, at a throw away price, as had been alleged by the by the borrower. The Bank had allegedly also assured to approve a one-time settlement (OTS) within April 4, 2017, but such promise was only a game plan of the ICICI Bank, who had deceived the petitioner No.1 and the Chairman. Thereafter, the Bank instituted a recovery proceeding before the DRT III Kolkata, for recovery of Rs. 29,40,38,991/- calculated as on February 2, 2017 with further interest, which was numbered as OA No.89 of 2017.

8. According to the petitioners, the Bank had incorrectly pleaded in paragraph 3 of the said application that the DRT III Kolkata had the jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. The cause of action for institution of the said original application, did not arise at ICICI Bank House, 3A Gurusaday Road, Police Station Karaya Kolkata 700019. Only an averment that the Eastern Regional Office of the Bank, was situated within the jurisdiction of the DRT III Kolkata, would not confer jurisdiction upon the tribunal.

9. The averments with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of DRT III, Kolkata, were misleading and only to create an illusion of jurisdiction. The learned DRT at Cuttack, in the State of Odisha, was the appropriate forum before which the original application ought to have been filed. The petitioners' case is that the loan was sanctioned from Odisha, letters pertaining to the same had been addressed from Odisha and all actions were taken from the bank's office at Odisha.

10. With such preliminary objection, with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the DRT III, Kolkata, the petitioners filed I.A. No.263 of