UNITED BANK OF INDIA, CALCUTTA versus ABHIJIT TEA CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 05-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNITED BANK OF INDIA, CALCUTTA 
A 
v. 
ABHIJIT TEA CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
B 
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: 
Sections 18, 19, 31 and 34. 
Bank-Suit against Debtor-company in High Court-Disposed on C 
29.3.1994 by single Judge-Appeal-Disposed by Division Bench on 
11. 8. I 998-Consequently suit remanded to single Judge-Enforcement of 
1993 Act w.e.f 27.4. 1994 i.e. during pendency of appeal-Jurisdiction of 
Court-Held ousted-Held suit was pending on the date of commencement 
of A.ct-1'herefore liable lo be transfe"ed I<> the Tribunal under the 1993 Act. V 
Debtor company-Suit fikd against banlc-Suit in the nature of a 
counter-c/aim:-Issues in debtor-company's suit integrally connecUld with 
issues in suit filed-by bank-Held suit fUe.d by debtcF-company has to be tried 
by Tribunal. 
. 
Court-Changes in law affecting pending actions-Duty of Court to 
take judicial notice of changes in Jaw. 
Statutory interpretation-Principle of purposive c<JflStruction-- 'Ca11Sus 
omissus '-Statute-Gap-Power of court to JUI. 
Suit-Disposal-Appeal-Remand of suit by appellate court-Effect of 
Judicial notice-Applicability of 
E 
F 
The Appellant-bank filed a suit on the original side of the Calcutta High G 
Court against the RSpondent-debtor. The said suit was disposed on 29.3.1994. 
Appeal preferred before the Division Bench was allowed on 11.8.1998 and 
consequently the suit stood restored before Single Judge of the High Court. 
In the mean time, the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial 
Institutions Act, 1993 came into force in West Bengal w.e.f. 27.4.1994. 
153 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent-company filed an application praying that the suit filed 
by the Bank should remain on the original side of the Calcutta High Court 
and be not transferred to the Tribunal under the Act. The contention raised 
on behalf of the company was that on the date when the Act came into force 
the suit was not pending on the original side but the appeal was pending before 
the Division Bench and that under Section 31(1) appeals did not stand 
B transferred to the Tribunal. This application was allowed by order dated 
3.9.1999 and the Bank's suit was directed to be retained in the High Court 
on the basis that the 1993 Act did not apply. 
Against the order dated 3.9.1999 Bank preferred appeal before this 
C Court. In this appeal an additional point was raised on behalf of the respondent-
. company that .the respondent had earlier filed a suit against the Bank in the 
High Court for specific performance and perpetual and mandatory injunction 
and as the issues arising in this suit were integrally connected with Bank's 
suit the same should be retained in the High Court. 
D 
It was also contended on behalf of the respondent-company that (i) the 
E 
proviso to section 31 retained appeals in the Civil Court, hence the suit 
remanded in appeal would also get retained; and (ii) there was no specific 
provision regarding remanded suits and this was a case of a 'causus omissus' 
and the said omission in the statute could not be filled by judicial 
interpretation. Otherwise, it would amount to judicial legislation. 
Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the impugned order, the Court 
HELD : 1. Both the suits, the one by the Bank against the respondent 
and the other by the debtor-company against the Bank which raises claims 
F or pleas in the nature of set-off or counter-claim are interconnected. Both 
the suits are falling with the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial 
Institutions Act, 1993. [169-D-EJ 
2. The suit filed by the Bank in 1985, even though it was disposed of by 
judgment dated 29.3.94, it stood revived with continuity by the remand order 
G passed by the Division Bench on 11.8.98, and cannot be treated as freshly 
instituted on 11.8.98 before the Single Judge but must, in the eye of law, be 
treated as pending on the crucial day i.e. 27.4.94. (161-E) 
3. An order of remand by the appellate Court to the trial Court which 
had disposed of the suit revives the suit in full except as to matters, if any, 
R decided finally by the appellate Court. Once the suit is revived, it must, in the 
> 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. ABHIJIT TEA CO. PVT. LTD. 
155 
eye of law, be deemed to be pending-from the beginning when it was instituted. A 
The suit cannot b~ treated as one freshly instituted on the date of t

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