IN RE: RADHIKA MALHOTRA & ORS. Vs. STATE

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.

(2.) 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 Act 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.

(3.) THE decree of this Court came to be passed when the plaintiff was not a financial institution. Hence this Court had inherent jurisdiction to try the suit and pass the decree. That has not been challenged.