PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, DASUYA versus CHAJJU RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 01-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, DASUYA 
v. 
CHAJJU RAM AND ORS. 
AUGUST 1, 2000 
[B.N. KIRPAL, A.P. MISRA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Debt Laws: 
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 : 
Sectiofts 1(4), 2(9), 17, 18, 31, 31-A and 34. 
Execution application-Entertaining of-By Debts Recovery Tribunal-
Jurisdiction of-Civil Court passed a decree in favour of a Bank for a sum 
which exceeded the minimum prescribed under S.1 ( 4 )-But the decree was not 
executed till the Debts Recovery Tribunal was established-Held, Tribunal has 
D 
jurisdiction to entertain the execution application and not the civil court-
Further, 0.21 R.10 CPC not applicable to such cases-Recovery of Debts Due 
to Banks and Financial Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2000-Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908-0.21 R.10. 
Sections 1(4) and 2(g)-Execution application-Debt due-Recovery 
E 
of-In excess of minimum prescribed under S.1(4)-Determination of-Held, 
principal amount together with interest thereon have to be taken into account 
to determine the minimum prescribed amount-Tribunal gets jurisdiction only 
if the debt due exceeds the prescribed amount. 
F 
G 
H 
Words and Phrases : 
"Debt"-Meaning of-In the context of S.2(9) of the Recovery of Debts 
Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 
"Proceeding" and "cause of action"-Meaning of-In the context of 
S.31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 
1993. 
The appellant-Bank filed a suit in the civil court against the re-
spondents for recovery of Rs. 6,19 ,250. The trial court decreed the suit for 
Rs. 12,91,398 including interest. Thereafter, the appellant filed an execu-
tion application before the civil court. 
84 
P.N.B., DASUYA v. CHAJJU RAM 
85 
In the meanwhile, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial 
A 
Institutions Act, 1993 had come into force and a Debts Recovery Tribunal 
was established. The appellant then moved an application before the civil 
court for transfer of the execution proceedings, which was allowed. 
The respondents thereupon filed a revision petition in the High Court. 
The High Court, while reversing the decision of the trial court, held that 
the execution proceedings could not be transferred and it was only the civil 
court, which had passed the decree, which could execute the same. The 
High Court further held that because the original decree, which was passed, 
was for the principal sum of Rs. 6,19,250, the Tribunal would get no 
jurisdiction. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the use of the 
words 'cause of action' in Section 31 of the Act indicated that it was only 
pending suits which could be transferred. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and 
Financial Institutions Act, 1993 contemplates not only the transfer of a su~ 
B 
c 
D 
but also transfer of a proceeding, which may be other than a suit, like an 
execution application. Understood in this context, the words 'being a suit 
E 
or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based ........ ' would mean 
that in the case of an execution application if the decree is for more than 
Rs. 10 Iakhs, then that is the cause of action or the reason for an applica-
tion for execution being filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. To put 
matters beyond doubt, the Act has been amended by the Recovery of Debts 
F 
Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (Amendment) Act, 2000 by which 
Section 31-A has been inserted. [88-B-C; D] 
Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank & Am:, JT (2000) SC 411, relied on. 
2. The High Court has erred in holding that because the original 
decree, which was passed, was for the principal sum of Rs. 6,19,250 the 
Tribunal would get no jurisdiction. The decree was for a sum of Rs. 
6,19,250 plus interest at the rate of 16-1/2 per cent per annum from the 
date of filing of the suit till the recovery of money. As and when the amount 
G 
due to the bank under the decree became more than Rs. 10 Iakhs and an 
H 
A 
B 
86 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
application for execution was filed, it could only be entertained by the 
Tribunal and not by the Civil Court. It is clear that in view of the provi-
sions of Section 34 of the Act, the provisions of Order 21 Rule lOof the 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would have no application. [89-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4365 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.99 

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