KISHORE RUNGTA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition challenges an order dated 18th November, 1999 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, dismissing the petitioners appeal from an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (D. R. T.) Jaipur and an order dated 11th December, 2000 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (D. R. A. T.) dismissing the petitioners Review Application bearing No. 165 of 1999.

(2.) WHEN this matter was taken up for admission, Mr. N. K. Kamat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary issue challenging the jurisdiction of this Court to hear matter relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Sita Ram Singhania v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. and others), 2000 Bank. J. (S. C.) 228 : 1999 (4) S. C. C. 382. Mr. Kamat also relied upon an unreported judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (H. L. Gokhale, J.) dated 22nd February, 2000 in the case of (Guru Kripa Plasticizers Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Punjab National Bank ).

(3.) AT first blush the preliminary objection appeared to be well founded. However, as we shall demonstrate, the preliminary objection is not sustainable. The said decision of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of this case. This becomes even more clear from the proceedings before the Supreme Court in that case which were produced before us.