The application under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporations Act is maintainable despite provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

1. The Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation (now Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited) has filed the instant appeal under O.43, R.1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as 'CPC') challenging the order dated 24-4-2003 passed by 6th Additional District Judge, Raipur in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/99, whereby an application filed by the non - applicants / respondents herein under O.7, R.11, CPC has been granted and the original application filed by the applicant / appellant herein has been returned for presentation of the same before the Court of the competent jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are thus:
1 The appellant / Madhya Pradesh Financial Corporation filed an application under S.31 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (henceforth 'the Act of 1951') before the Additional District Judge, Raipur praying that an amount of Rs.1,02,98,685.13 along with interest @ 15% be directed to be paid by the non - applicants / respondents herein.
2 Upon being noticed, the non - applicants / respondents filed an application under O.7, R.11 read with S.151, CPC stating inter alia that since the amount in dispute exceeds the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and as per provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (henceforth 'the Act of 1993') the jurisdiction to pass an order of recovery of the amount in dispute is vested in the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1993, therefore, the application, as framed and filed by the applicant / appellant under S.31 of the Act of 1951, being not maintainable, and it be dismissed.
3 The trial Court, by the impugned order, granted the application filed by the non - applicants / respondents under O.7, R.11, CPC holding inter alia that under the provisions of the Act of 1993, jurisdiction to recover the amount exceeding Rs.10,00,000/- vests in the Debts Recovery Tribunal and, therefore, the application filed by the applicant / appellant under S.31 of the Act of 1951 is not maintainable. The trial Court directed for return of the application under S.31 of the Act of 1951 for filing the same in the Court of competent jurisdiction.

3. Shri Anup Majumdar and Shri Kashif Shakil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has committed grave illegality in holding that the trial Court has no jurisdiction under S.31 of the Act of 1951 to direct for repayment of the amount in dispute. They would further submit that by virtue of S.34(2) of the Act of 1993, the provisions of the Act of 1993 shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the Act of 1951 and application filed by the appellant was maintainable being saved by S.34(2) of the Act of 1993.

4. Shri. Adhiraj Surana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order, would submit that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. In order to understand the controversy, it would be profitable to quote S.31 of the Act of 1951 as well as S.34 of the Act of 1993, which run thus :
S.31 of the Act of 1951
"31. Special provisions for enforcement of claim by Financial Corporation. - (1) Where an industrial concern, in breach of any agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation or where the Financial Corporation requires an industrial concern to make immediate rep