J SINU SIMON Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks to quash the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the first respondent herein, in IN-164/2007, against the order made in I. A. No. 207 of 2007 in O. A. No. 373 of 2003 on the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, and to direct the first respondent to reject the application in O. A. No. 373 of 2003.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as could be seen from the pleadings are as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that unless the recovery amount exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the application and the petitioner having secured the loan, which has no connection with the other loan obtained by M/s. Jandm Hardwares and Electricals, the Bank cannot club both the loan amounts together to show pecuniary jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Preliminary issue raised before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not decided by the Tribunal and the same being a legal and jurisdictional issue, shall be resolved in the first instance and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in a cryptic order, dismissed the appeal by holding that the Bank has prima facie made out that the total claim amount exceeds more than Rs. 10 lakhs and therefore the Debt Recovery Tribunal has got pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned counsel also cited the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 4 SCC 275 (Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association) and (2005) 4 SCC 315 (Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India) in support of her contention and argued that the pecuniary jurisdiction being the legal issue shall be decided first before going into the contentions raised in the original application on merits.