RUBY KNITTING INDUSTRIES Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Vashisht has contended that the suit at this stage cannot be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal as the suit has been instituted prior in time and there is no jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal to deal with the relief as prayed for in the suit. The suit which has been filed by the plaintiff is prior to the suit filed by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.It has been contended by Mr. Vashisht that this suit was filed in the year 1993 with the prayer for Prohibitory, Mandatory injunction and also for damages

(2.) The respondent bank has filed the proceedings For recovery before the Debt Recovery Tribunal earlier at Jaipur which was subsequently transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal Chandigarh. Mr. Vashisht further contended that in terms of Section 19 of the Act suit which has been instituted by the plaintiff prior to the filing of the proceedings by defendant cannot be transferred. He has contended that it is only after an application for recovery of the debt has been filed by the bank plaintiff can file any counter claim. It has been contended that the right to file counter claim or agitate any right or claim as a defendant in terms of sub section (5),(6),(7),(8) and (9) of Section 19 of the Act is only available after the proceedings for recovery has been instituted by the Bank. It has also been contended before me that the matter can be agitated before this Court in term of sub-section 11 of of Section 19 of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendants has contended that after the amendment in the year 2000 to the Recovery of Debts ( due to Bank and Financial Institution ) Act 1993 , the Tribunal has been vested with the jurisdiction to try counter claim or any other claim including the claim for damages and, therefore, the suit,cannot be tried in this Court and the suit has to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He .has further contended that what has been contended before this Court by Mr. Vashisht with regard to interpretation of Section 17 of the Act, regarding jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal if taken to its logical conclusion then all the suits which were transferred by this Court which were instituted prior to coming into force of the Debt Recovery Tribunal have to be transferred back to this Court. Learned counsel for the defendant has further contended that from thei reading of Section 31 of the Act the Legislative intention is manifest that every suit or proceedings which were pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal shall stand transferred on that date.