1.

This Appeal is against Order dated 17.08.2017 of DRT-I,

Ernakulam in OA 441/2013.

2.

Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-

Respondent Bank filed Suit in OS No. 72/2006 before

Sub-Judge, Kattappanna for recovery of Rs.6,22,793/- with

interest and costs, and said Suit is decreed on 30.06.2010.

Appellants herein preferred an Appeal against said Order in

RFA No. 811/2011 before Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, and

said Appeal is dismissed on 26.02.2015. Bank filed EP before

Sub-Judge, Kattappanna, for recovery of Decree amount in

EP 34/2011.

But, Sub-judge dismissed said EP on the

ground that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction, as EP amount

crossed Rs.10 Lakhs, by relying on judgement of Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala, granting liberty to Bank to approach DRT for

execution.

Bank filed Application under Section 31A of

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 [hereinafter

referred to as RDB Act, 1993] before DRT and Tribunal below

4

allowed said Application and ordered for issue of Recovery

Certificate in terms of Decree dated 30.06.2010 in OS No.

72/2006 of Sub Court, Kattappanna; aggrieved by the same,

present Appeal is preferred.

3.

Advocate for Appellants mainly contended that the Order

of Tribunal below is not legal as Section 31A of RDB Act, 1993,

has no application to the case on hand.

He further

submitted that as per the definition of ‘debt’ under Section 2(g)

of RDB Act, 1993, Decree would also fall within the definition

of ‘debt’, therefore, Bank has to file an Application under

Section 19 (1) of RDB Act, 1993, and hence, matter has to be

remitted back to the Tribunal below to treat the Application

under Section 19 (1) of RDB Act, 1993, and decide the same.

4.

Advocate

for

Bank

opposed

said

contention

and

submitted that, if the Application of Bank is to be treated as

an Application under Section 19(1) of RDB Act, 1993, it would

amount to setting the clock back and nullifying the Decree

passed by Civil Court, which is confirmed by Hon’ble High

5

Court of Kerala and became final.

He further submitted, as

the amount exceeded Rs.10 Lakhs by then, EP Court rightly

directed Bank to approach DRT, and Tribunal below, by

considering the issue with reference to the settled proposition

of law, issued Recovery Certificate, and there is no illegality in

the Order dated 17.08.2017.

5.

First and foremost contention of Appellants is that

Section 31A of RDB Act, 1993, which came into force by way

of amendment with effect from 17.01.2000, has no application

to the present case. He submitted, according to said provision,

Decree passed by any Court prior to 17.01.2000, which have

not been executed, then, Decree holder can apply to the

Tribunal for Recovery Certificate.

As Decree in this case is

long after the amendment, Tribunal cannot issue a Recovery

Certificate.

6.

On the other hand, it is the contention of Bank that in a

similar set of facts, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala upheld

6

Recovery Certificate issued by Tribunal, and relying on that

judgement, Tribunal below ordered Recovery Certificate.

7.

I have perused the impugned Order. In para 9, Tribunal

below, while referring to the judgement of Hon’ble High Court

of Kerala in V.D. Mathew Vs. State Bank of Travancore,

reported in (2008) 3 KLT 30, held that, Bank is entitled for

issue of Recovery Certificate.

I have perused the judgement

of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. In that case, the Decree was

passed on 10.12.2004, which is subsequent to 17.01.2000,

the day on which amendment came into force.

When Bank

approached the Tribunal for issue of Recovery Certificate, as

the amount was beyond Rs.10 Lakhs, and Tribunal below

issued

Recovery

Certificate,

which

is

challenged

before

Hon’ble High Court, and Hon’ble High Court upheld the Order

of Tribunal.

So, the objection of Appellants cannot be

accepted in view of the above referred judgement.

8.

Other contention of Appellants is that, Bank has to file

an Application under Section 19(1) of RDB Act, 1993, for

7

recovery, since the definition of ‘debt’ includes the Decree.

Advocate for Bank opposed said proposition contending, it

amounts t