UCO BANK Vs. REGISTRAR DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Bank. The petitioner instituted a suit before the Sub Court, Alappuzha. A decree was passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner moved for execution. During the pendency of the execution, a Tribunal was constituted in terms of the Recovery of Debt due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 on 4.11.1996. On and from the day of such constitution, no civil court will have power to try any suit or proceedings, other than appeals, in respect of a specified amount. S.31 of the Act provides that every such suit or proceedings pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of the Tribunal shall stand transferred if the cause of action of such suit or proceedings would have been such that it would not lie before that court, if filed after the establishment of the Tribunal. The cause of action of the suit which is now executed by the petitioner bank for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, was admittedly less than the specified amount viz. Rs. 10 lakhs. But because of the accrual of interest on the decree amount, the amount had escalated to more than Rs. 10 lakhs as on 4.11.1996. Therefore execution of proceedings stood transferred to the Tribunal by operation of S.31. The papers were thus rightly forwarded to the Tribunal. But the Tribunal, when the matter was examined, found that the cause of action of the suit was less than Rs. 10 lakhs when the suit was filed. The case was sent back to the Civil Court. That is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) The main contention of the petitioner is that the amount due to the bank as on the date of constitution of the Tribunal i.e., 4.11.1996 shall be determinative for deciding the jurisdiction of the forum where such proceedings shall be tried. As on 4.11.1996, the amount to be realised including the interest accrued had exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs. Therefore the Sub Court, Alappuzha did not have any jurisdiction and had rightly transferred the proceedings to the Tribunal. So, going by S.31 of the Act, that action was perfectly justified and the Tribunal could not have held that it did not have jurisdiction merely because the amount at the time of its institution was less than Rs. 10 lakhs.

(3.) I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. As per S.31, only those suits or proceedings "the cause of action where on it is based is such that it would have been if it had arisen after such establishment" of the Tribunal could be filed in the Tribunal alone. The cause of action where on the petitioner's suit was based was admittedly less than Rs. 10 lakhs. In such circumstance, going by S.31, that amount shall be determinative for deciding jurisdiction where the proceedings shall be continued. The Tribunal is therefore perfectly justified in retransferring the matter to the Sub Court, Alappuzha.