UNITED BANK OF INDIA versus THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 08-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AND ORS. 
APRIL 8, 1999 
(G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 
1993: 
C 
Sections 17(1), 3(1), 2(g), 18 and 31-Jurisdiction of Debts Recovery 
Tribunal-Claims of Banks and Financial Institutions-Held, the entire 
averments in the plaint should be examined to find out whether the claims 
are such that it is possible to oust the jurisdiction of the tribunals-Expression 
'debt' has to be given the widest amplitude and objects of the Act have t(),. 
D be taken into consideration to' interpret the provisions of the Act-Hence, 
suit filed by the appellant-bank for recovery of debt from one of the several 
defendants and for certain ancillary and incidental relieft against other 
defendants-Held, DRT had exclusive jurisdiction to try the suit-Civif 
Procedure Code, 1908, Section 9. 
-
' 
· E 
Prime object of the; Act-H:_ld, is the establishment of Tribunal for 
F 
expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to the banks and financial 
---,.. 
institutions and for matter connected therewith or incidental thereto. 
Words and phrases-Word "debt"-Meaning of-Jn the context of the 
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. 1993. 
Interpretation of statutes-External Aids-Dictionary meaning-Not 
necessary when1 the term is already defined in the statu.te. 
The appellant-bank filed a suit against three defendants in the High 
Court for recovhy of debts from one of the defen~ants and certain ancillary f 
G and incidental reliefs against the others. During the pendency of the suit the 
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came 
into being and by operation of Section 31 thereof, the suit stood transferred 
to the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Act. The respondents 
moved an application before the tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to try the 
suit ln view of the nature of the reliefs prayed for and as such the plaint 
H should be returned to the plaintiff to be filed in the High Court. The application 
. 
496 
-
.. , 
UNITED BANK OF INDIA" THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 
497 
of the respondents was dismissed by the tribunal. The respondents thereafter, A 
filed three separate applications before the High Court under Article 227 
challenging the orders passed by the tribunal. The High Court allowed the 
applications filed by the respondents on the ground that the claim was of an 
undetermined amount and was therefore, not 'debt' as defined under 2(g) of 
the Act. Hence this appeal. 
B 
Allowing this appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial 
Institutions Act, 1993 and the relevant provisions will have to be construed 
bearing in mind the objects for which Parliament passed the enactment. The 
prime object of the enactment is to provide for the establishment of tribunals C 
for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial 
institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto . 
[501-C] 
1.2. In the present case, the expression 'debt' has to be given widest 
amplitude to mean any liability which is alleged as due from any person by D 
a bank during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank 
either in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, whether pa:yable 
under a decree or order of any court or otherwise and legally recoverable 
on the date of the application. In ascertaining the question whether any 
particular claim of any bank or financial institution would come within the E 
purview of the tribunal created under the Act, the entire averments made by 
the plaintiff under the plaint have to be looked into and then is has to be found 
out whether notwithstanding the specially-created tribunals having been 
constituted, the averments are such that it is possible to hold that the 
jurisdiction of such a tribunal is ousted. So examining the averments made 
in the plaint, it has to be held that the claim in question made by the plaintiff F 
is essentially one for recovery of a debt due to it from the defendants and, 
therefore, it is the Debts Recovery Tribunal which has the exclusive 
jurisdiction to decide the dispute not the ordinary civil court. [504-B-D) 
State of Punjab v. S. Rattan Singh, [1964) 5 SCR 1098, relied on. 
Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231 and Kesoram 
Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commi

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