All transactions to be clubbed together for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to the Tribunal.

S.S. SUBRAMANI J.

This revision is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the third respondent in Transferred Application No. 100 of 1996, on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madras. The respondent herein filed C.S. No. 852 of 1989 on the original side of this court. When the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force, the suit was transferred before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and was numbered as Transferred Application No. 100 of 1996.

The respondent filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of more than Rs. 21 lakhs and interest at quarterly rests, and for consequential reliefs. From the body of the plaint, it could be seen that the first defendant-company availed of financial assistance in the nature of term loan and cash credit facilities, as per application dated January 19, 1985. The same was sanctioned by the respondent as per sanction letter dated December 30, 1985. As security for the loan, machineries were hypothecated, computers, floppies, ribbons software and computer systems were also hypothecated. The first defendant-company was not satisfied with the amount advanced, and it again requested the respondent-bank for further and additional loan in the nature of cash credit pledge, inland letter of credit and import letter of credit. As per sanction letter dated October 28, 1986, those facilities were also granted, and existing security already given continued as collateral securities for the additional facilities also, apart from other securities. There was default in payment, and on enquiry, it was found that the first defendant is not even doing any business. The sales tax authorities had also attached the machineries, and the first defendant challenged the attachment before judgment by the sales tax authorities before this court, and the same was vacated. On enquiry, it was further found that the first defendant had violated many terms and conditions of the loan which necessitated the filing of the suit for recovery of more than Rs. 21 lakhs.After the case was transferred to the Tribunal, the third defendant filed I.A. No. 143 of 1997, contending that the transfer application was not maintainable before the Tribunal and, therefore, the matter has to be sent back to the High Court. The reason was that the loan was granted under two transactions and the same constitutes two different causes of action. Under rule 10 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, an application must be confined to one cause of action, and if so made, the claim will be under Rs. 10 lakhs only and, therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Only for the purpose of getting jurisdiction to the Tribunal, both the causes of action have been combined and a demand is made for more than Rs. 21 lakhs. It is contended that the loan was granted under two sanction letters and the defendants have executed separate documents and, therefore, the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action. The suit cannot be tried by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

A detailed counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent-bank. According to it, in the main application, the loan was granted for two facilities and the additional loan was granted only for the purpose of helping the defendant to establish an industry. Even though the loan was under two transactions, the intention was to treat the same as one cause of action. It is also said that the guarantee deeds are the same, and so long as there is only one security, the causes of action cannot be split up. Therefore, the suit is maintainable, and the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to dispose of the case.

By the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the application is maintainable and dismissed the I.A. The same is challenged under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions that were raised before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the loan was gra