The main legal point established is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunals under the Act, 1993 for matters related to recovery of debts due to Banks and financial institutions, and the overriding effect of its provisions on any other Act or instrument.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

(a) For issuance of direction upon the respondents restraining/ prohibiting them from continuing/proceeding with Certificate Case No. 08/15-16 (BOI St. Xavier School Branch, Sector-I, B. S. City Vs. M/s Aso Sales, through its partner, Rajesh Ranjan & Anr.), presently pending before the respondent No.2 as well as to quash the aforesaid certificate proceeding being a non-est proceeding.

(b) For declaring that in view of the provisions of Sections 17, 18, 31 & 34 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1993’), the aforesaid certificate proceeding initiated against the petitioner in the year 2015 by the respondent No.1 is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed.

(c) For declaring that exclusive jurisdiction has been vested in the Tribunals constituted under the Act, 1993 for the Banks and financial institutions situated within the respective territorial areas of tribunals and hence the Certificate Officer has no authority to exercise jurisdiction with respect to the issue covered by the Act, 1993.

(d) For declaration that as per Section 34 of the Act, 1993, the provisions of the said Act have overriding effect on all the Acts prevailing as well as the instruments and hence the aforesaid certificate proceeding initiated by the respondent No.1, supposed to be on the basis of 2009 Agreement/Instrument, is not maintainable.

(e) For declaration that in view of the provisions of Section 66 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1914’), the Certificate Officer will be deemed to be a Court/other authorities and any proceeding before him shall be deemed to be a civil proceeding and shall be barred under Section 18 of the Act, 1993.

(f) For declaring that the claim of the respondent-Bank being a money claim is barred by law of limitation which already became non-performing asset in the year 2010 itself, however, the Bank knowingly and maliciously adopted the procedure of recovery of loan by initiating a certificate proceeding, though the same is not maintainable, and obtained illegal, arbitrary and malafide orders including warrant of arrest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with his cousin, namely, Ajit Kumar started a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s ASO Sales which was dealing in footwears, however, due to some dispute between both the partners, the petitioner left Bokaro in the year, 2014. Since the partnership between the petitioner and Ajit Kumar was unregistered, the petitioner had no concern with the said footwear business being run at Bokaro. However, the respondent No.2, without considering the said facts as well as providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, issued bailable warrant against him vide order dated 12.02.2019 which has not been served to him till date. The petitioner came to know about the aforesaid certificate case only on 13.09.2021 through the concerned police station at Patna. The certificate debtor No.2 however appeared before the respondent No.2 in Certificate Case No. 08/2015-16 and filed his objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the entire certificate proceeding initiated by the respondent-Bank is not maintainable. The Act, 1993 was enacted for the purpose of expeditious adjudication of the matters related to realisation of loan taken from the Banks and financial institutions. After enforcement of the Act, 1993, the Certificate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any requisition of the respondent-Bank for recovery of loan amount. The concerned authority of the Bank filed the requisition for initiating aforesaid certificate case after lapse of more than five years of the loan account becoming non-performing asset. Moreover, the respondent No.2 without following the pri