EUREKA FORBES LIMITED Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) While pressing into service the definition of the word 'debt' appearing in Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short as the 'Recovery Act'), it is vehemently contended before us that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal') lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim of the Bank against the appellant. The appellant was neither a borrower nor was there any kind of privity of contract between the two. As such, money claimed from them was not a 'debt' and, therefore, rigors of the recovery procedure under the provisions of the Recovery Act could not be enforced against the appellant. This is a submission which, at the first blush, appears to be sound and acceptable. But, once it is examined in some depth and following the settled canons of law, one has to arrive only at a conclusion that the contention is without any substance and merit. At the very outset, as a guiding principle we may refer to the maxim 'a verbis legis non est recedendum' but before we proceed to examine the merit or otherwise of the principal contention raised before us, it will be necessary for us to refer to the basic facts giving rise to the present appeal, particularly, in view of the fact that it has a wretched and long history which began in the year 1988. FACTS

(3.) Appellant is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, while Respondent No. 1, Allahabad Bank is a body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transport of Undertakings) Act, 1976. Respondent No. 3 in the present appeal is a proprietorship firm of Respondent No. 2. The appellant company is stated to have entered into an agreement on 16th August, 1983 with respondent Nos. 2 & 3, granting licence in their favour to use premises at Jainkunj at Goragachha Road, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises') for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- payable to the appellant, along with the plant and machinery as well as their trade mark "OSBOURNE". It is further the case of the appellant that they had no knowledge of the fact that, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 had availed certain cash credit facility and had hypothecated their raw materials, semi-finished and finished products to Bank. However, on or about 28th February, 1987, the said respondents had requested the appellant to take over the possession of the said premises along with the closing stock lying therein. This was so requested because respondent Nos. 2 & 3 had not paid the licence fee for the use and occupation of the premises, goods etc. as agreed and further vide letter dated 23rd July, 1987, they stated that appellant could sell the stocks as well as lathe machine lying in the factory premises and adjust the sale proceeds thereof towards the arrears of licence fee. After taking possession of the factory premises, the appellant prepared an inventory of the stock in possession and as alleged by them, they had no knowledge that these stocks had been hypothecated by the said respondents in favour of the Bank. The letter dated 7th August, 1987 has been annexed by the appellant in support of such averment. It appears from the record that the respondent Bank vide its letter dated 21st August, 1987 wrote to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 raising an issue as to how the possession of the stocks and machinery was given to the appellant. This was done in response to the letter of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 dated 18th August, 1987 and copy thereof was sent to the appellant while referring to the letter dated 7th August, 1987 addressed by the appellants to the other respondents. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant extract of the letter dated 21st August, 1987 which reads as under: