GERTY SUVARNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRD respondent-bank filed oa No. 88 of 1995 before the second respondent-tribunal against the first and second petitioners herein (borrower and guarantor respectively) under Section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993 ('act' for short ). The reliefs claimed in the said original application are. 1. Directing petitioners herein personally to pay the amounts mentioned in schedule 'c' to the application along with interest at 19. 75% per annum compounded quarterly;

(2.) DIRECTING sale of mortgaged immoveable property describedin 'b' schedule as to the application; and

(3.) AWARD costs of the proceedings including the fee paid to the tribunal and the advocates. 2. In schedule 'c' to the original application, the bank claimed two amounts i. e. , a sum of Rs. 4,28,881. 20 in regard to account No. Psl/gen. 5/1989 and a sum of Rs. 7,68,386/- due in regard to account No. Osl/ml/155/89. The total amount claimed is Rs. 11,97,267. 20. 3. The petitioners on entering appearance, made an application (ia No. Ii) for rejection of the bank's original application, as being barred by rule 10 of the debt recovery tribunal (procedure) rules, 1993 ('rules' for short), which reads as follows:petitioners contended that the application was filed on two causes of action; that the bank had averred two distinct and separate causes of action, the first in regard to a housing loan (account No. Psl/gen. 5/1989 for Rs. 2. 00 lakhs) and the second in regard to a vehicle loan (account No. Osl/ml. 155/1989 for Rs. 2. 5 lakhs); that the bank could not have filed a single application in regard to two separate causes of action and that the reliefs sought by the bank were not consequential to one another; that the amount claimed in respect of each of the two accounts was less than Rs. 10 lakhs and but for the fact that a single application was filed by clubbing the two claims, the debt recovery tribunal would not have jurisdiction to try the original application; that the bank had deliberately clubbed two separate causes of action to bring the claims within the jurisdiction of the tribunal and thereby avoid filing of two separate suits in a civil court.