ALLAHABAD BANK versus CANARA BANK AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1102 · Decided: 10-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ALLAHABAD BANK 
v. 
CANARA BANK AND ANR. 
APRIL 10, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHARAO AND SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Debt Laws: 
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act! 1993-
Sections 17, 18, 19, 25-30 and 34-Jurisdiction of Recovery Officer as against 
Companies Court-Held, Recove1y officer has exclusive jurisdiction in re-
spect of decree passed by Tribunal. 
Companies Act 1956-Secs. 442, 537, 446(1), (2), (3), 529, 529-A and 
530-Debt Recovery Trikunal passing a decree against a Company-Recov-
D 
ery Proceedings pending-Petition for Winding Up of debtor Company by 
other creditors-Held, execution of ce11ificate of debts payable to Banks and 
Financial Institutions are within the exclusivejurisdiction of Tribunal-Legal 
Proceedings before Tribunal cannot be stayed by Company Court. 
E 
F 
Recpvery of Debts-One of the creditors of a Company obtaining 
certificate-Proceedings for recovery pending-Other creditors whose claim 
has not been adjudicated by the Tribunal, cannot be impleaded at recovery 
stage. 
Civil Procedure Code 1908-Section 73-Decree obtained by unsecured 
creditor-Monies deposited in Court-Held, priorities among creditors to be 
decided by Tribunal-Companies Act-Sec. 529-A-Directions- issued to Su-
preme Court Registry to release monies to Tribunal-Tribunal to disburse 
monies after ascertaining workmen's dues. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Principle of Purposive interpretation-Dis-
G 
cussed. 
Maxims-Maxim "Generalia Speicalibus non derogant"-Meaning of 
The appellant filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribu-
nal, Delhi under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and 
H 
Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for recovery of same due to them and a 
1102 
/ 
--
ALLAHABAD BANK v. CANARA BANK 
1103 
simple money decree was passed with interest at 18 % and interest tax levy 
at 0.75% p.a. Recovery Case was filed by them for recovery before the 
Recovery Officer. The debtor company filed an appeal before the appellate 
Tribunal and there was no stay since the company defaulted in deposit of 
the money directed to be deposited. An application was filed by respondent 
No. 1 also under the Act of 1993 in the Debit Recovery Tribunal, Delhi for 
recovery. The said application of the Respondent is pending in the Delhi 
Tribunal under the Act of 1993. 
Canara Bank filed an interlocutory application before the Recovery 
Officer for impleadment in the recovery case of the appellant, seeking pro-
rata distribution of sale proceeds from auctions of the debtor company's 
properties. The appellant Banks opposed the same contending that since 
no orders have been passed in favour of Canara Bank in its application 
filed before the Delhi Tribunal against the same company, there was no 
question of impleading the Canara Bank. As regards proportionate dis-
bursement of sale proceeds, it was observed that the question was prema-
ture and that the said issue could be considered after sale proceeds were 
received by the Tribunal. These applications were dismissed. 
Since the Recovery Officer declined to confirm a sale in respect of a 
property of the debtor company and directed a fresh auction, the appellant 
Bank filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227. 
Canara Bank then filed applications in the Debt Recovery Tribunal 
under section 22 of the Act of 1993 seeking stay of recovery proceedings in 
the recovery proceedings, which were pending. Canara Bank filed an 
application in the companies court in a pending winding up petition under 
sections 442 and 537 of the Companies Act 1956 seeking stay of recovery 
proceedings and for staying sales of assets of company by the appellant 
Bank. 
In the said application the Company Judge passed an order staying 
the further sale of assets of the Company in the recovery case in the DRT 
and also restraining disbursement of monies already realised in other 
sales. 
In appeal to this Court, the Appellant contended that the Act of 1993 
is a special statute intended for expeditious adjudication and recovery of 
debts due to Banks and financial institutions and it contains two crucial 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
provisions viz., Section 18 which ousts the jurisdiction of all Courts or 
other auth(_)rities (except the Supreme Court and the High Court exercis-
ing powers under Articles 226 and 227) in relation to matters covered by 
·· Section 17 which covers the entire procedure from the filing

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.