SURINDER MOIIAN NAYYAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that is mooted in the writ petition is whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal (in short the "tribunal")has jurisdiction to entertain execution proceedings in respect of decrees passed prior to coming into force of 'the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short the "act" ).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is impermissible. Learned counsel for the respondent with reference to Sections 17, 18 and 25 of the Act submitted that it is permissible. With reference to section 17 and 18 of the Act, the Apex Court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara bank and another, JT 2000 (4) SC 411, observed as follows :

(3.) IT was held that jurisdiction of the Tribunal in regard to adjudication is exclusive. The tribunal alone is to decide matters relating to recovery of debts due to banks or financial institution. Once Tribunal passed an order that the debt is due, the Tribunal has to issue certificate under Section 19 (22)[formerly under Section 19 (7) to the Recovery Officer for recovery of the debt specified in the ceitificate. It was, therefore, held that provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the Act are exclusive, so far as the question of adjudication of the liability of the defendant is concerned. In any event, section 31-A has been introduced in the Act by Section 14 of the Amendment act 2000 with effect from 17-1-2000. The said provision reads as follows-