Delhi High Court
Shri Kanwaljit Singh vs Central Bank Of India on 4 April, 2007
Author: J Malik
Bench: J Malik
JUDGMENT
J.M. Malik, J.
1. The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 came into force on 24th June, 1993. Section 31 of the said Act runs as follows:
31. Transfer of pending cases
(1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action where on it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date of such Tribunal:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before any court.
(2) Where any suit or other proceeding stands transferred from any court to a Tribunal under Sub-section (1),
(a) The court shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forward the records of such suit or other proceeding to the Tribunal; and
(b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under Section 19 from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage as the Tribunal may deem fit.
2. Vide impugned order dated 28.4.2005, the Senior Civil Judge passed the following order:
Heard. File perused.
The present appeal arises of suits which were essentially for recovery of documents with respect to suit filed by Central Bank of India (wrongly typed as Canara Bank) and pending in the court of Delhi Recovery Tribunal (II), New Delhi.
In my opinion, the recovery of documents in a suit pending in a Judicial Tribunal cannot be sought through a Civil Suit filed in the Civil Court. The remedy to file appropriate application is before the appropriate tribunal where the suit is pending.
Hence, there is no merit in the appeal and dismissed as such. File be consigned to record room. TCR be sent bank.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in view of judgment passed by this Court in Impression Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. The Bank of Baroda 2002(2) All India Banking Law Judgments 119, the matter should have been transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Record reveals that in the instant case, the case was decided by Civil Judge vide order sheet dated 16.2.2005 i.e. after the above said Act had come into operation. It should have been transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal immediately but it appears that due to inadvertence it was decided by Civil Judge.
4. I have taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances and as agreed by both the counsel, I, hereby set aside the order passed by Senior Civil Judge, remand the case before him who will immediately transfer the case/proceedings/appeal for further proceedings, before the D.R.T. The DRT will decide the case as per law. Parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge on 20th April, 2007.
