M/S HIRA LALL AND SONS AND ORS. versus M/S. LAKSHMI COMMERCIAL BANK

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 444 · Decided: 05-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MIS HIRA LALL AND SONS AND ORS. 
v. 
MIS. LAKSHMI COMMERCIAL BANK 
AUGUST 5, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 139 A-Transfer Petition-Suit 
based on letter of credit issued by bank pending before Debt Recovery 
C Tribunal-Regarding same transaction suit, based on insurance claim, 
pending, before High Court-Plea to transfer the case before Tribunal to 
High Court-Held, cannot be transferred since suit based on insurance claim 
and the suit based on letter of credit arise out of different cause of action-
Jurisdiction of other Courts stands ousted in view of exclusive jurisdiction 
given to the Tribunal-Article 139 A not attracted in case of transfer from 
D Trial Court to High Court-Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial 
Institutions Act, 1993-Sections 17, 18 and 31-Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908-Section 25-Constitution of Ind~a-Artic/e 142. 
On the request of petitioner-importer, the respondent bank opened letter 
E of credit in respect of payment for certain consignment When the respondent-
bank presented the documents to the petitioner asking it to pay the amount, 
it did not a~cept the documents finding them discrepant and invalid for 
acceptance. In the meantime the ship carrying the consignment sunk in the 
sea. Respondent Bank was informed about the same. Bank filed a suit for 
recovery of the amount After enactment of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks 
F and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit got transferred to Debt Recovery 
Tribunal. Suits were filed by the importers against the insurai:ice companies 
on account of sinking of ship. 
Petitioners filed transfer petition under Article 139A of the Constitution 
of India praying for transfer of the case before the Tribunal to High Court on 
G the ground that in suits filed by importers against insurance companies 
pending in High Court and in the suit filed by the Bank pending before the 
Tribunal, common issues were involved. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
H 
444 
H!RA LALL AND SONS v. LAKSHMI COMMERCIAL BANK 
445 
HELD: I. The instant case is not a case where transfer of a case from A 
one High Court to another High Court is sought for. Article 139-A of the 
Constitution is not attracted to cases of this nature. It is also doubtful whether 
Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable since the transfer 
of the proceeding is not from one State to another State. Whether inherent 
jurisdiction of this Court would be attracted to a proceeding of this nature is B 
also in doubt. However, it is not necessary to go into that aspect. [447-BJ 
2. A suit based on insurance claim and a claim based on Letter of Credit 
arise out of different causes of action though it may be true that in the case 
pending before the High Court against Insurance Company and in the 
application before the Tribunal certain common issues may arise. The exact C 
nature of the other suits filed by other parties which are stated to be pending 
in the High Court and the cause for retention on its file is not available on 
record. Apart from this fact, when exclusive jurisdiction has been given to 
the Tribunal under the Act in respect of matters that could be dealt with under 
Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions D 
Act, 1993 the jurisdiction in other courts to entertain and decide such matters 
for recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions stood ousted as 
provided under Section 18 of the Act. Further Section 31 of the Act provides 
for transfer of cases from Civil Courts to the Tribunal. Hence it is not 
expedient to direct the case pending before the Tribunal to High Court. 
[447-E, F, G; 448-B-A] E 
Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association and Ors., 
[2002) 2 SCR 450, referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 193/ p 
1997. 
(Under Article 139-A of the Constitution.) 
P. Chidambaram, Bhargava V. Desai, Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Ms. 
Vanita Mehta for the Appellant. 
G 
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Y.P. Narula, Ms. Shomila Bakshi and Ms. Aishwariya 
Rao for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
RAJENDRA BABU, J. This is a petition filed for transfer of original 
application No. 846 of 1996 pending before the Debts recovery Tribunal 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') to the High Court of Delhi. 
The allegations in the

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