SICOM LIMITED Vs. NARESH CHANDRA MALHOTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff/decree holder has sought to execute the decree passed by this Court in the above suit against the defendants/judgment debtors. The defendants have applied for dismissal of the execution application on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree passed by it. An admitted chronology of dates and events must be first seen. The suit was filed in 2000. The plaintiff was not a financial institution then. A decree came to be passed on 3rd December 2002. The plaintiff was not a Financial institution even then. The plaintiff was notified as financial institution in 2004. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Oct. 1993 (DRT Act) was enacted in 1993 and amended in 2000. It would apply to the plaintiff from 2004. The plaintiff has taken out the execution application in 2012.

(2.) IT is contended by the plaintiff that under section 38 of the CPC this Court is the executing Court since it is the Court which passed the decree. It is contended by the defendant that the execution proceedings should be transferred to the DRT and the plaintiff must apply for a recovery certificate from the DRT and then execute it.

(3.) MR . Balsara on behalf of the defendant would contend that the execution application must be transferred to the DRT under section 31 -A in Chapter VI of the DRT Act, which runs thus: