PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. RAMESH KANHAYALAL BATHIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by a Nationalized Bank and challenged the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Misc. Appeal No. 73 of 2004. Respondent No. 2 preferred an application on the grounds that he cannot be said to be a debtor and the proceedings against him is not maintainable before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The Tribunal rejected the said application against which, respondent No. 2 preferred Misc. Appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). By the impugned order, the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 has been allowed.

(2.) As per the averments, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 were having the overdraft facility and FCNR account and NRE account with the petitioner's bank. The basic allegation against respondent No. 2 was that he in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 and 3 cleared the liability and transferred the same amount in account of respondent No. 4 and thereafter, respondent No. 1 closed the said overdraft facility. A suit was filed in the year 1998 to recover the amount against the respondents. The suit was transferred to DRT and was numbered as Original Application No. 1368 of 2000, in view of the Act. The respondent No. 2 in his written statement challenged the jurisdiction of the DRT, basically on the ground that the claim against him is not covered by the definition of "debt". It was contested. By an order dated 10-12-2003, the said application was rejected, which as recorded above, ultimately allowed by the DRAT.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner's bank has strongly relied on the definition 2(g) "debt" of the Act. He has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Debts Recovery Tribunal and Ors., 1991 AIR(SC) 1381 and contended that expression 'debt' is wide enough to include such claim of undetermined sum.