STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. A KUTTALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in O.S. No. 195 of 22008 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodaikanal is the revision petitioner. THE first respondent, herein filed the above suit for a declaration that the common order passed in I.A. Nos. 819 to 821 of 2008 in R.P. No. 280 of 2007 in DRC No. 15 of 2005 in TA NO. 698 of 2007 dated 25.8.2008 by the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai is in contravention of the provision of Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act 1961 consequentially set aside the said order and other consequential proceedings.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is a Nationalized Bank, filed O.S. No. 76 of 1987 on the file Subordinate Court, Periyakulam against the first respondent and Others for recovery of Rs.37,64,328.55/- on the basis of the loan availed by the defendants and mortgage executed by the defendant and in that suit, priliminary decree was passed on 20.3.1991 and final decree was passed on 19.7.1996 in I.A. No. 543 of 1993 in O.S. No. 76 of 1987 and as per the final decree, mortgaged properties are directed to be sold for the purpose of realization of the amount payable to the revision petitioner bank. THErefore, for the realization of the said amount, the revision petitioner filed O.A. No. 406 of 1999 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai for issuance of Recovery Certificate based on the final decree, as in the meanwhile, Act 51 of 93 Recovery due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1983 came into force and in respect of any matter covered under the Act proceedings are to be initiated only before the Tribunal as per the Act. THE said O.A. No. 406 of 1999 was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai and renumbered as O.A. No. 717 of 2001 and the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal II, Chennai passed final order on 4.7.2001 and declared that the applicant bank is entitled to a Recovery Certificate as per the said Act for a sum of Rs.76,59,904.98/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with quarterly rests.

(3.) THE revision petitioner filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the suit filed by the first respondent herein stating that the suit is a clear abuse of process of Court and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as per Section 30 of the Act 51 of 93 against the order of Recovery Officer, an appeal lies before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the matter and therefore, the suit is a clear abuse of process of Court and is liable to be struck off.