The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action without embarking upon an enquiry into their correctness at the initial stage.

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

CM No. 44422/2018 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 11477/2018

This petition has been filed by the petitioner ICICI Bank Ltd. Challenging the order dated 4th October, 2018 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal-III (DRT-III in short) in Original Application No. 469/2017 whereby DRT-III has refused to entertain the OA and directed the Registrar of the Tribunal to place the case file before the concerned DRT as per the notification dated 11th May, 2015 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.

2. It is the submission of Mr. Puneet K. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has erred in inter alia holding that DRT-III has no jurisdiction. According to him, the DRT-III has proceeded on the premise that the address of the appellant Bank is at Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and even the defendant is based at Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, overlooking the fact that in the OA, the ICICI Bank has given its Delhi address as E-Block, Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, Extension, New Delhi. That apart it is his submission that in the OA under the heading jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the relevant averments are as under:

“Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: 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.”

3. That apart, he states the loan agreement in question was executed at the Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi as is clear from Pages 29 and 41 of the paper book. He relies upon the judgment of this court in the case of M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Naresh Yadav and Anr. W.P.(C) 10436/2018 by stating that the writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the said judgment itself as even the DRT had not issued any notice to the respondent in the Original Application.

4. Having heard Mr. Bhalla and noted the judgment as referred above, we are in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Bhalla and noting the relevant provisions of loan agreement and the averments made in the OA, there cannot be any dispute that the agreement was executed at Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, which is enough to confer jurisdiction on the DRT-III to entertain the Original Application. It is not understood on what basis, the Tribunal held that the Bank is situated at Tilak Nagar. That apart, it may be true that the defendant is residing in Tilak Nagar, but that cannot be the only relevant consideration when the issue of jurisdiction is examined. For this purpose, the issue needs to be seen from the perspective of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, which stipulates 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 an account in which debt claimed is outstanding, for the time being; or

(aa) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in partly, arises: [provided that the bank of financial ins