The main legal point established is that the territorial jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is determined by the location of the branch where the loan documents were executed and the cause of action arose.

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd. challenging the order dated 14th March, 2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-III, New Delhi holding the Original Application being 512/2017 not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and directed the Registrar of the Tribunal to return the plaint of the petitioner bank along with certificate of court fee for filing the same before the appropriate Tribunal.

2. It is the submission of Mr. Puneet K. Bhalla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank that the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the position of law in terms of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 that the petitioner can file an Original Application where a part of cause of action has arisen. According to him, the agreement with the respondent was executed in Delhi as is clear from pages 36, 37, 40, 43, 45, 47 and 48 of the paper book. The finding of the Tribunal that the loan documents were not signed at the branch office of the applicant Bank at Jhandewalan, New Delhi is perverse. In this regard, he has referred to Page 55 of the paper book, which stipulates bank’s address as VT, which signifies Videocon Tower. Even otherwise, according to him, the Memo of Parties clearly depicts the petitioner Bank’s address at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi.

3. We note notice on the petition has been issued to the respondent. Mr. Bhalla has also filed an affidavit of service, wherein the following has been stated:-

That vide notice dated 20.10.2018 issued by the Hon’ble Court, I visited the address of the Respondent to serve the Respondent, i.e., House No.1203, Sector-3, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad-201012, Uttar Pradesh. That the said address of the respondent was found ‘Locked’ and thereby, I affected the service through affixation. Photographs of affixation are attached herewith.

3. Havin heard Mr. Bhalla, we agree with the submission made by him inasmuch as the loan documents were executed in Delhi. The document at page 30 clearly depicts that the branch of the ICICI Bank being at V-T, New Delhi. That apart, the address given in the Memo of Parties clearly show the Branch Office as Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi.

4. It is not understood on what basis, the Tribunal has held that the loan documents were not executed at the branch of the applicant Bank situated at Jhandewalan, New Delhi. We are clear that the loan documents were executed in Delhi and that too at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. That apart, we find that the original application filed by the petitioner vide para 3 which relates to “Jurisdiction of the Tribunal” at Page 66 of the paper book reads as under:-

“This tribunal has the jurisdiction under the act, since, the applicant bank is situated at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055, the loan documents were executed at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055, the loan was disbursed from New Delhi, the loan amount is repayable at New Delhi, the whole cause of action has accrued at New Delhi hence the Tribunal at Delhi shall has exclusive jurisdiction. Thus this Hon’ble Tribunal under the act and the rules has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present application.”

When such a stand has been taken, which is supported by a verification of the Bank’s representative, there is no reason for the Tribunal to overlook such a stand.

5. The issue of jurisdiction of DRT to entertain an Original Application is no more res-integra, as the issue needs to be seen from the perspective of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which reads as under:

[19. Application to the Tribunal-

(1) Where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the branch or any other office of the bank or financial institution is maintaining