RAMAKANTA MISHRA Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24-5-2002 (Annex. 4) passed by the presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in T. C. No. 312 of 2001 rejecting the application of Ramakanta Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the 'original petitioner')to transfer the case to the Civil Court for execution of the decree.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the original petitioner had taken a term loan in April, 1971. He did not pay the amount and as on 25-12-1981 a sum of Rs. 1,06,153-64 paise remained outstanding. The original petitioner did not pay the amount in spite of notices given by the opposite party-bank. Thus the bank filed O. S. No. 10/1 of 88/82 before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior division'), Puri for realization of the said amount. The said suit was contested by the original petitioner. However, it was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 29-9-1999 and 14-10-1999 directing the original petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,06,154-64 paise along with P. I. and F. I. at the rate of 13% per annum from 25-12-1981. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree; the original petitioner preferred first appeal. However, during this period the bank filed Execution Case No. 7 of 2000 before fhe Civil Court for recovery of Rs. 11,76,601 64 paise. In view of commencement of the debts Recovery Act and particularly because of the provisions of Section 31a of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial institutions Act, 1993, proceeding, stood transferred to the Tribunal for execution. The matter was contested before the Tribunal by the original petitioner contending that wrong calculations had been made and the outstanding dues including interest etc. on the date of filing the transfer application was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, thus the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding and the matter should be referred back to the civil Court for execution of the judgment and decree.

(3.) THE Tribunal considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the original petitioner and came to the conclusion that the outstanding dues was less than Rs. 10 lakhs, however, it was merely a technical ground and there was no prohibition in law and to advance the cause of justice the Tribunal could execute the decree. Such a course was adopted in view of the fact that the loan had been advanced to the original petitioner in 1971, the suit was filed in 1982 and it was disposed of after about 17 years in 1999 and it would be greatest injustice to deprive the bank from making the recovery of the same on technical considerations and ultimately passed the following order : -