( 1 ) VIJAYA Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 has instituted this suit against Shri A. N. Tiwari, Advocate for the recovery of Rs. 10,21,960. 00. In response to the suit Shri Tiwari has moved an application to the effect that since the amount claimed is not "on account of or as a result Of any business activity undertaken by the plaintiff bank as stipulated under section 2 (g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter called the-Act), therefore, the Tribunal constituted under the Act would have no jurisdiction to try the suit and that consequently, the suit be not transferred to it.

( 2 ) THE question, as would be borne out from the preceding paragraph, revolves around the meaning of the term "debt" as defined in section 2 (g) of the Act. However, before I proceed to examine that definition let me first refer to the essentials of plaintiffs claim.

( 3 ) IT appear that the defendant, who is a practising advocate of this court, was on the panel of lawyers of the plaintiff bank and in that capacity he had been entrusted from time to lime with some of its legal cases. It so happened that some disputes arose between M/s. Hindco Rotractron Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ramkrishna Temple Trust in respect of premises at P-6/90, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The plaintiff bank is a tenant in respect of the said premises and has its Divisional office there In view of the claims and counter claims set up by the rival camps with regards to the the plaintiff bank thought it prudent to deposit rent in court from May, 1987 and engaged the services of the defendant for the purpose and a cheque for Rs. 4,13,483. 66 was issued in his name. The grievance of the plaintiff bank is that out of the said amount, the defendant has furnished a receipt only for Rs. 1,73,483. 66 and that the balance amount of Rs. 2,40,000. 00 has not been deposited. This, however, is still not the end of the story. The plaintiff bank alleges that it had also paid the defendant a sum of Rs. 61,800. 00 for depositing the same in court towards arrears of rent of premises No. 52/38 Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi which was in occupation of its Senior Manager Shri Suresh Hegde and that the said amount had also not been deposited. Hence this suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,40,000. 00 plus Rs. 61,680. 00 (totalling Rs. 3,01,680. 00 towards principal and Rs. 7,20,280. 00 towards interest.

( 4 ) IS this a suit for the recovery of "debt" as defined in section 2 (g) of the Act?

( 5 ) THE term debt is defined in section 2 (g) of the Act as under :

"debt" means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is alleged as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institutions or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or whether payable under a decree or order of any. civil court or otherwise and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application".

( 6 ) WHAT does the definition of "debt" show? It shows that debt means any liability in cash or otherwise whether secured or unsecured or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or otherwise and includes interest. Such liability must be subsisting and legally recoverable on the date of the application. It is further essential that the liability which is alleged as due by a bank or a financial institution etc. must have been during the course of any business activity undertaken by the said bank etc. and that the business activity so undertaken must have been under any law for the time being in force.

( 7 ) AS already noticed, in the application moved by the defendant his challenge is confined only to the point that the so/called liability is not "on account o