Single petition filed by bank cannot be held bad for misjoinder of causes of action.

This revision is under Art.227 of the Constitution of India filed by respondents 4 and 7 in the Original Application No.41 of 1996, on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai.

.2. State Bank of India, Tiruppur Branch, filed the above application for recovery of Rs.10,51,791.10 under two different heads, namely, Medium Term Loan Rs.98,485 and cash Credit Account Rs.9,53,3010. It is the case of the Bank/ applicant that on the basis of an application filed by the first respondent before the tribunal, they were provided with two facilities, (1) Medium Term Loan, and (2) Cash Credit Facility. It was on the basis of a single application, the above the facilities were availed, and when there is a breach of the obligations arising the under an availing the facilities, they are entitled to seek enforcement thereof by filing a single Application.

3. When the above application was filed, the petitioners herein filed a counter taking various contentions, one of which was that the application is defective since one application is filed wherein more causes of action than one are clubbed together. It is also contended that the claim of Medium Term Loan also cannot be entertained and the same is added in this proceeding only for the purpose of jurisdiction of the tribunal. Otherwise, both these claims could be entertained only by a civil suit since in each transaction the claim will be less than Rs.10 lakhs.

4. They also filed an application to hear the aspect of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. By the impugned order, tribunal held that it has jurisdiction and the application is not bad for misjoinder of causes of action. It is challenging the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

.5. Main reliance is placed on Rule 10 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 which reads thus:

."An applicant shall not seek relief or reliefs based on more than a single cause of action in one single application unless the reliefs prayed for are consequential to one another."

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner sub-mitted that two different heads of claim form part of different causes of action, and one is not consequential of the other. The finding of the tribunal that one is consequential to the other and, therefore, the application is maintainable before that court is not correct.

7. Sub-sec.(l) of Sec.22 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Ordinance, 1993, which was later passed as an Act, reads thus:

"The tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this ordinance and of any rules, the tribunal and the appellate tribunal shall have powers to regulate their own procedure including the places at which they shall have their sittings."

Sec.19(8) says that an application made to the tribunal under Sub-sec.(l) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the application finally within six months from the date of receipt of the application.

8. While reading the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ of the Act, the then Finance Minister, at the time of introducing the Bill, said thus:

"Banks and financial institutions at present experience considerable difficulties in recovering loans and enforcement of securities charged with them. The existing procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and financial institutions has blocked a significant portion of their funds in unproductive assets, the value of which deteriorates with the passage of time. The Committee on the Financial System headed by Shri M. Narasimham has considered the setting up of the Special Tribunals with Special powers for adjudication of such matters and speedy recovery as critical to the successful implementation of the financial sector reforms. An urgent need was,