IDBI BANK LTD Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed by two of the creditor banks, who formed consortium with ICICI Bank in granting loan to second and third respondents. One of the consortium banks--ICICI Bank is the fourth respondent herein. It is seen from the narration of the facts herein, the fourth respondent-ICICI Bank filed a suit before the Bombay High Court for recovery of amount in C.S. No. 4109 of 1997 against the second and third respondents herein, who are the defaulters. The suit was subsequently transferred to DRT, Mumbai consequent on the constitution of DRT, now pending therein as O.A. No. 1945 of 1999. It is a matter of record that the petitioners herein filed a petition in O.A. No. 125 of 1999 on the file of DRT, Chennai against the second and third respondents for recovery of Rs. 52,64,31,000/- claiming pari passu charge over certain assets of the second and third respondents. It is stated that all the three creditors claimed pari passu charge over the same securities. Since 1999, the O.As before the respective DRTs are pending. Documents relating to the properties in original were filed in Civil Suit filed before the Bombay High Court, since transferred to DRT, Mumbai. As the original applications pending before two Tribunals are contested by the borrowers in M.A. No. 30 of 2011 and that there should not be different orders on the self-same documents. In the light of this, the second and third respondents sought for transfer of those applications pending before DRT, Chennai to DRT, Mumbai to hear the O.A. along with O.A. No. 1945 of 1999. On hearing the parties, the DRAT passed an order that since the O.A. arose out of the same transaction and the cause of action being one and the same, it would be convenient to the parties that if both these O.As were tried by the same Tribunal, so that, multiplicity of proceedings could be avoided. Thus, the DRAT, Chennai directed transfer of the O.As pending on the files of DRT-II, Chennai to DRT, Mumbai to hear the O.A. along with O.A. No. 1945 of 1999 pending on the files of DRT, Mumbai.

(2.) Aggrieved by this, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the two creditor banks questioning the very authority of the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 17-A of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to transfer the case pending on the files of the Chennai Tribunal within his jurisdiction to a different jurisdiction.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that going by the provisions under Section 17-A of the Act, the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction over the Tribunal can transfer any case from one Tribunal to another Tribunal within his jurisdiction; consequently, the order of the Chairperson transferring the applications pending before the Tribunal within his jurisdiction, namely, Chennai, to a Western jurisdiction, namely, Mumbai Tribunal, is totally without jurisdiction. Thus, the petitioners sought for quashing of the order of the Chairperson in transferring the petitions.