S.C. Gupte, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The present order disposes of the notice of motion taken out in the Summary Suit.

2. The subject matter of the suit is a liability which is claimed as due from the Defendant, who is also a bank, in respect of certain bills of exchange issued under letters of credit and negotiated with the Plaintiff-bank.

The summons for judgment is opposed by the Defendant-bank. The Defendant-bank has taken out the present notice of motion praying for transfer of the proceedings of the suit to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”).

3. This application is on the ground that after coming into force of the Enforcement of Security Interest And Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 (“Amending Act”) on 15 January 2013, this suit, which is a suit for recovery of a debt of the Plaintiff-bank, which is a multi-State cooperative bank covered under the definition of “banks” under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (“Recovery of Debts Act”), cannot be entertained by this Court. It is submitted that under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide any application from a bank for recovery of debts due to such bank. It is submitted that under Section 31 of that Act, every suit or other proceeding pending before the court immediately before coming into force of the Amending Act must be transferred to DRT. It is submitted that the date of coming into force of the Amending Act ought to be reckoned as the date of establishment of the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Act insofar as debts to be recovered by multi-State cooperative banks are concerned. It is submitted that on or from that date, DRT alone can entertain or proceed with any application for recovery of debts by such banks, under Sections 17 and 18 of the Recovery of Debts Act.

4. Mr. De Vitre, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff, opposes the application. Learned Counsel submits that the suit is not covered under the transfer provisions of Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Act. Learned Counsel submits that the present suit cannot be said to be pending ‘immediately before the date of establishment of the Tribunal’ under the Recovery of Debts Act. Learned Counsel submits that such pendency is a prerequisite for application of Section 31 for transfer of the suit. Learned Counsel submits that apart from Section 31, there is no inherent power in the court to order transfer of suits for recovery of debts. Learned Counsel refers in this behalf to a judgement of the Supreme Court in case of Raghunath Rai Bareja Vs. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230. In further support of his submission, learned Counsel also relies on the prvisios, respectively appearing under Sections 18 and 31 of the Recovery of Debts Act. Relying on the objects and reasons of the Amending Act, which brings multi-State cooperative banks under the definition of ‘banks’ under the Recovery of Debts Act, learned Counsel submits that the express object of the Amending Act was to enable multi-State cooperative banks, such as the Plaintiff-bank, to continue at their option proceedings availed of by them on the date of coming into force of the Amending Act.

5. Under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Act, the Central Government is required to establish one or more tribunals to be recognized as Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”) to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on such tribunal by or under that Act. Under Section 17 of that Act, a tribunal is required to exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. The expressions “appointed day”, “banks” and “debt” are defined under Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 as follows:

2. Definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherw