SURINDER MOHAN 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 dut to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (in short the Act)

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is impermissible, Learned counsel for the respndents with reference to Sections 17, 18 and 25 of the Act submitted that it is permissibl. with reference to Sections 17 and 18 of the Act the Apex court in Allahabad Bank V. Canara Bank d 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 lo hanks or financial institutions. Once Tribunal passes 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 lor recovery of the debt specified in the certificate, It was there- .. lore held lhal provisions of Sections 17 and IS of the Act arc exclusive, so far as the question of ad|udication ol 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:- 31 A- Power of Tribunal to issue certificate of recovery in case of decree or order not executed:-