Delhi High Court
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Supreme Transport Organisation ... on 22 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 22nd October, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11102/2018, CM Nos. 43166-43167/2018
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. M. Dutta, Mr. Sachin Jain and
Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advs.
versus
SUPREME TRANSPORT ORGANISATION PVT LTD & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajinder Wali, Adv. and
Mr. Anand Aggarwal, Adv. for R1
Mr. Rishi Sood, Adv. for R4 & R8
AND
+ W.P.(C) 11108/2018, CAV 953/2018, CM Nos. 43184-43185/2018
SUPREME TRANSPORT ORGANISATION PVT LTD
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajinder Wali, Adv. and
Mr. Anand Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. M. Dutta, Mr. Sachin Jain and
Mr. Sanjay Lamba, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
W.P.(C) No. 11102/2018 and connected matter Page 1 of 5
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CAV 953/2018 in W.P.(C) 11108/2018
Since counsel for the cavetor is present.
Caveat stands discharged.
CM No. 43167/2018 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 11102/2018
CM No. 43185/2018 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 11108/2018
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11102/2018 & W.P.(C) 11108/2018
1. These two appeals have been filed by the appellants
challenging the common order dated September 24, 2018 passed by
the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Delhi-I (in short 'DRT').
2. The grievance of the appellant in W.P. (C) 11102/2018 (by
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.) is that the OA No. 778/2018 filed by it,
has been held to be not maintainable on the ground of territorial
jurisdiction, whereas the grievance of the appellant in W.P. (C)
11108/2018 (by Supreme Transport Organisation Pvt. Ltd.) is that
the Tribunal has directed interim order passed by it to remain in
force for a period of 30 days.
3. It is the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and contended
by Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank
that the Tribunal without deciding the application filed by it for
amendment of the OA, wherein it had sought amendments to para 3
pertaining to "Jurisdiction", wherein it was specifically stated that
all the decisions pertaining to its financial facilities both fresh and
old along with maintenance of books of accounts and not limited to
recovery of outstanding amount is being serviced and maintained at
the Regional Office situated at IBIS, Commercial Block, Asset
No.9, Hospitality District, Delhi Aerocity IGI Airport, New Delhi
which according to him would show that the DRT, Delhi-I had the
jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application in view of Section
19(1)(a) of the RDDBFI Act.
4. He also states that the issue of jurisdiction is a mixed
question of fact and law and needs to be decided by giving
opportunity to the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. to put its case in
support of its contention that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction by
allowing the amendments sought.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajinder Wali, learned counsel
appearing for the Supreme Transport Organisation Pvt. Ltd. states
that on a perusal of the Original Application filed by Kotak
Mahindra Bank Ltd., it is seen that bald averments have been made
without satisfying as to how the DRT-I, Delhi has the jurisdiction.
6. He also stated that the grievance of the Supreme Transport
Organisation Pvt. Ltd. in its writ petition is to the extent that the
DRT has continued the interim order, even though, the Tribunal had
specifically concluded that it does not have the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application filed by the Kotak
Mahindra Bank Ltd. Mr. Wali also stated that the appellant,
Supreme Transport Organisation Pvt. Ltd. had also filed an
application for vacation of order dated July 24, 2018, whereby a
garnishee order has been passed directing debtors of Supreme
Transport Organisation Pvt. Ltd. to make payments in the account
maintained with the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. According to him,
the said order is affecting the working / finances of the Supreme
Transport Organisation Pvt. Ltd, and is liable to be vacated.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, agreeing
with the submission of Mr. Gupta, we dispose of the writ petitions
by setting aside the order dated September 24, 2018 and thereby
directing the Tribunal to decide the application for amendment filed
by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. for amendment of the Original
Application and thereafter, decide the issue of the territorial
jurisdiction of the DRT-I, Delhi to entertain the Original
Application. The Tribunal shall also decide the application filed by
the Supreme Transport Organisation Pvt. Ltd. for vacation of
interim order dated July 24, 2018, while considering the application
on the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the
OA.
CM No. 43166/2018 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 11102/2018
CM No. 43184/2018 (for stay) in W.P.(C) 11108/2018
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 22, 2018/aky
