Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
Selection (Partnership Firm) and Ors.
Vs.
Chief Manager, Central Bank of India and Ors.
Misc. Appeal No. 3203 of 2008
Decided On: 21.01.2011
Held: Thus, it has been settled by the Supreme Court that under section 17, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in relation only to applications from banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. The civil Court has jurisdiction to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same are barred expressly by a statute or by necessary implication. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted only in respect of the matters contained in section 18 which have direct cod`relation with section 17. The Supreme Court has specifically observed that had the jurisdiction of the civil Court been barred in respect of the counter-claim also, the statute would have said so and sections 17 and 18 would have been suitably amended to include therein the provision relating to counter-calm also.
In view of the aforesaid position of law, it is apparent that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred in respect of the suit for damages filed by the appellants. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the provisions contained in sections 17 and 18 of the Act and has committed an error in holding that the civil suit filed by the appellants is not maintainable. (2006)5 SCC 72 and (2009)8 SCC 646 followed. (2007) 1 SCC 97 distinguished. [Paras 11 & 12
cSadksa vkSj forh; laLFkkvksa dks ‘kks/; _.k olwyh vf/kfu;e] 1993 && /kkjk 17 rFkk 18 && flfoy izd`fr ds lHkh fookn && flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk vo/kkfjr fd, tk ldrs gS tc rd fd dkuwu ;k vko‘;d foo{kk }kjk vfHkR;Dr :i ls oftZr u gks && flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk && cSadksa rFkk foRrhl laLFkkvksa dks ‘kks/; _.k dh olwyh ds fy, ek= bu cSadksa rFkk foRrh; laLFkk ls vkosnuksa ds laca/k esa gh oftZr && O;fDrxr i{kdkj }kjk {kfriwfrZ ds fy, izLrqr okn ds laca/k esa oftZr ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl izdkj] mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g LFkkfir fd;k x;k gS fd /kkjk 17 ds v/khu flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk cSadksa rFkk foRrh; laLFkkvksa dks ‘kks/; _.k dh olwyh ds fy, ek= bu cSadksa rFkk foRrh; laLFkkvksa ls vkosnuksa ds laca/k esa gh oftZr gSA flfoy U;k;ky; dks flfoy izd`fr ds lHkh fooknksa dks vo/kkfjr djus dh vf/kdkfjrkgS tc rd fd ;s dkuwu }kjk vfHkO;Dr :i ls ;k vko‘;d foo{kk }kjk oftZr u gksA flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk /kkjk 18 esa lekfo"V ek= mUgha ekeyksa esa gVkbZ xbZ gS ftudk /kkjk 17 ls izR;{k lg&laca/k gSA mPPre U;k;ky; us fofufnZ"V :i ls leqfDr nh gS fd ;fn flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk izfr&nkok ds laca/k esa Hkh oftZr gksrh] dkuwu esa ,slk dgk x;k gksrk rFkk /kkjk 17 ,oa 18 esa izfr&nkos ls lacaf/kr mica/k Hkh blesa lfEefyr djus ds fy, mi;qDr :i ls la‘kks/ku fd, x, gksrsA
fof/k dh iwoksZDr fLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,] ;g izdV gS fd flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk vihykFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr {kfriwfrZ ds fy, okn ds laca/k esa oftZr ugha gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vf/kfu;e dh /kkj 17 ,oa 18 esa lekfo"V mica/kksa dk mfpr :i ls ewY;kadu ugha fd;k gS rFkk ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa xyrh dh gS fd vihykFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr flfoy okn xzkg~; ugha gSA ¼2006½5 ,l lh lh 72 rFkk ¼2009½8 ,l lh lh 646 vuqlfjrA ¼2007½1 ,l lh lh 97 izHksfnrA
¼iSjk 11 ,oa 12½
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
1. This appeal under Order 41, Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 11-8-2008 passed by the Court of Addl. District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 2/2006 deciding the issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court against the Appellant/Plaintiff.
2. In brief, the Appellants had filed the Civil Suit No. 2-B/2006 pleading that they had taken cash credit limit from the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and had executed certain documents in their favour. The recovery proceedings were initiated by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and RRC was issued in collusion with Respondent Nos. 5 and 8. The Appellants alleged certain action, inaction and illegal action on the part of the Respondents in the course of the recovery proceedings which had resulted into the loss to the Appellants, therefore, they claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 3,27,16,600/- along with the interest. The suit was opposed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by filing the written statement and objecting to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of the provisions contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the DRT Act") and also disputing the claim of the Appellants on merit. The trial Court had framed the issue No. 6 relating to the jurisdiction' of the Civil Court and by the impugned order dated 11-8-2008 trial Court has decided the said issue against the Appellants holding that the suit filed by the Appellants is not maintainable in the Civil Court and returned it for filing before the DRT.
3. Learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in deciding the issue of jurisdiction against the Appellants without appreciating that none of the provisions of the DRT Act exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of a suit for damages at the instance of a private party. He further submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the provisions of the DRT Act and has committed an error in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction.
4. Learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court in holding that the Civil Suit at the instance of the Appellants was not maintainable. He submitted that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of the clear provisions contained in the DRT Act.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Chapter III of the DRT Act deals with the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal. Under Section 17 of the Act the Tribunal can entertain and decide application filed by the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. Under Section 17-A the Appellate Tribunal exercises general power of superintendence and control over the Tribunal. Section 18 of the Act relates to the bar of jurisdiction and excludes the jurisdiction of other Courts and authorities, except Supreme Court and High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in relation to matters specified in Section 17. Sections 17 and 18 are reproduced below for ready reference:
17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals. - (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions.
(2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act.
18. Bar of Jurisdiction. - On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matt
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
