The main legal point established in the judgment is that the place of execution of the agreement and the location of the branch from which the loan facilities were given are crucial in determining territorial jurisdiction under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

CM. No. 48141/2018 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 12415/2018

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Bank challenging the order dated 3rd October, 2018 passed in Original Application No. 684/2017 dismissing the OA on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and directed the Tribunal to return the plaint to the petitioner Bank along with certificate of court fee for filing the same before the appropriate Debt Recovery Tribunal.

2. It is the submission of Mr. Punit K. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has erred in holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the documents were executed in NOIDA and the loan was disbursed from NOIDA Branch. He has drawn our attention to page 79 onwards to show the stamp of the Bank is of Express Building, ITO, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, the place from which the loan was disbursed. He has also shown to us Para 3 of the OA relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal wherein it is specifically stated that the loan facilities were granted to the respondents from the Retail Asset Operation Branch of Bank at Bahadur Shah Zafar Margh, ITO, New Delhi. We reproduced the same as under:

“The Loan Applications of the Defendants have been processed and loan facilities were granted to the Defendants from the Retail Asset Operation Branch of the Applicant Bank at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, ITO, Delhi, i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal and also as part cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal; and as the Application is for the recovery of more than Rupees Ten Lakh, therefore this Hon’ble Tribunal has a pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Original Application.”

3. He relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Manjeet Kumar Singh, W.P.(C) 11477/2018 decided on 26th October, 2018, wherein on a similar issue, we had allowed the writ petition reminding the Tribunal that similar writ petitions are being filed challenging the orders of different DRTs which have been passed without taking into consideration the facts pleaded in the Original Applications.

4. According to us, Page 145 of the paper book which is a legal notice got issued by the petitioner through his counsel does also indicate that the loan facility was granted from the branch of the petitioner Bank situated at Bahadur Shah Zafar Margh, ITO, New Delhi. The reliance placed by Mr. Bhalla on the judgment of the Manjeet Kumar Singh (supra) also governs the case in hand, wherein we have on similar facts have held that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction. Not only this, earlier also we have passed several orders on similar lines. The relevant portions of the judgment in the case of Manjeet Kumar Singh (supra) are reproduced as under:

“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 branc