BHANU CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. versus ANDHRA BANK, HYDERABAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 28-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BHANU CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. 
v. 
ANDHRA BANK, HYDERABAD AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 
(M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993-
Sections 2(c), 18 and 31-0rder passed by Civil Court subsequent to passing 
C of the Act but before establishment of Tribunal under the Act-Held, within 
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court-Held, since the "appointed day" under 
the Act is the date of setting up of the Tribunal and not the day of passing 
of the Act. 
Appellant company referred disputes in contracts entered into with 
D National Thermal Power Corporation (N.T.P.C.) to arbitration proceedings 
claiming Rs. 23 crores. Respondent-banks filed a suit before the Civil Court 
for recovery of Rs. 19 crores from the company and filed an interlocutory 
application seeking a direction that the said amount be deposited by N.T.P.C. 
before the Civil Court if it becomes payable to the company in arbitration 
proceedings. The Civil Court, by an order dated 20.9.94, directed N.T.P.C. 
E not to pay the company any amount until further orders. The company filed a 
writ petition before the High Court against the order of the Civil Court. Single 
Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that, with the passing of Recovery 
of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 on 24.6.93, the 
Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The Tribunal under the Act was set up on 
F 30.11.94. Division Bench, concurring with the Single Judge Held that Civil 
Court has no jurisdiction. It, however, allowed the appeal by two banks since 
no decree has been passed by the Civil Court. Hence this appeal by the 
company. 
The company contended that the order of the Civil Court dated 20.9.94 
G was without jurisdiction as it was passed subsequent to the passing of the Act 
on 24.6.93. 
H 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It will be noticed from the provisions of Recovery of Debts 
due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 that the "appointed day" 
130 
BHANU CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. v. ANDHRA BANK 
131 
in relation to a Tribunal means the day on which the Tribunal is established A 
and not the day on which the Act came into force. In the present case, it is not 
in dispute that the Tribunal was established on 30.11.94 subsequent to the 
passing of the order of the Civil Court. It is true that the Civil Court passed 
an order on 20.9.94 after the Act had come into force. But for the purpose of 
Section 18 of the Act what is relevant is not the date of passing of the Act but 
the date of the establishment of the Tribunal Therefore 24.6.93 is not relevant B 
but it is the date of establishment of Tribunal namely the 30.11.94 that is 
relevant. The impugned order, in the present case, was passed by the Civil 
Court on 20.9.94 prior to the establishment of the Tribunal on 30.11.94. 
Therefore, the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench were "wrong in 
concluding that the order of the Tribunal was without jurisdiction. 
C 
(133-G-H; 134-A-B) 
1.2. Section 31 of the Act deals with the transfer of pending cases. 
According to Section 31(2)(b), the Tribunal may, on receipt ofsuch records, 
proceed to deal with such suit or other proceedings, so far as may be, in the 
same manner as in the case ofan application made under Section 19 of the D 
Act from the State which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier 
stage as the Tribunal may deem fit. Therefore, now that the suit has been 
transferred to the Tribunal, it will be for the appellant to seek appropriate 
reliefs before the Tribunal If the appellant wants any modification or vacation 
of the interim order passed by the civil court on 20.9.94, it can move the E 
Tribunal. (134-C-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7056-57 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.2.99 of the Andhra Pradesh F 
High Court in W.A. No. 1144/97 and W.A.M.P. No. 3941of1998. 
P.N. Mishra, S. Misra, B. Swain, A. Kumar, R.N. Patnaik, R. Roy and 
Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellants. 
V.R. Reddy and P.P. Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered: 
Special Leave granted. 
G 
These appeals are preferred by the appellant against the judgment 
dated 10.2.99 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in H 
132. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A W.A. No. 1144of1997 and W.A.M.P. No. 3941/98. The Bench set aside the 
judgment of the learned Single Judge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.