Decided on January 27,2004



Pratibha Upasani, - (1.) THIS transfer petition is filed by the appellants/original defendants in two separate and independent proceedings filed in Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai and Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune respectively. The prayer made by the appellants/original petitioners is that this Chairperson as per the discretion conferred upon her under Sub-clause (2) of Section 17-A of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as RDB Act) has power to transfer Original Application No. 79P of 2001, pending in the DRT, Pune to DRT-I, Mumbai and be heard along with Original Application No. 267 of 1999 which is pending on the file of DRT-I, Mumbai. The reason given for this transfer is that by such a transfer multiplicity of proceedings so also inconsistency in the orders and judgments that would be passed by the DRT-I, Mumbai can be avoided. It is submitted that the matters in issue are similar and the parties are also same and no harm and prejudice would be caused to any of the respondents if such {i transfer is directed.
(2.) The respondent No. 1 Oriental Bank of Commerce appeared through their Advocate Mrs. Nair, filed their say and strongly opposed the prayer for transfer of Original Application No. 79-P/2001 from DRT Pune to DRT-I, Mumbai and further prayer made by the appellants/petitioners that Original Application No. 79/P/2001 be clubbed with on Original Application No. 267 of 1999, which is pending in DRT-I, Mumbai and both the original applications be heard together. I have heard Mr. Muchalla along with Mr. Utpal Joshi for the petitioners and Mrs. Nair for the respondent No. 1. I have also gone through the proceedings and in my view, the application for transfer made by the appellants will have to be rejected for the reasons given below : After hearing both the Advocates and after going through the proceedings, it is revealed that the original applicants (plaintiffs) in the proceedings, are different, so also array of defendants in these two proceedings are also different. Cause of action in the two proceedings is not same. Both the respondents have several and distinct causes of action for filing original applications against the applicants/petitioners before the respective Tribunals. It is also revealed that the transaction of loans and advance and security documents executed by the petitioners/applicants in favour of various Banks including the first respondent i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce are separate and distinct. No joint documents in the nature of consortium documents were executed which might, if at all, require a joint action by all the respondents. The fact that the respondents have a pari passu charge as charge holders over the same assets cannot be a reason for joint trial before the same Tribunal. It also has to be kept in mind that the evidence which will be led by the respondent Banks in proving their case would be based on entirely separate set of documents obtained by them from the petitioners. There is no common question of law and facts in these two proceedings, which requires that the two original applications should be tried together and in view of this, there is no question of inconsistency in the orders and judgments, which may be passed by these two Tribunals in the respective original applications. It is also to be remembered that the original application which is pending in DRT-I, Mumbai i.e. O.A. No. 267 of 1999 is at an advanced stage while original application being O.A. No. 79/P/2001, which is pending on the file of the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Pune is- in the initial stage and by clubbing these two original applications together, hearing of the Original Application No. 267 of 1999 which is at the final stage in DRT-I, Mumbai, would be protracted. May be that is intention of the applicants in making this transfer application.
(3.) UNDER these circumstances, I do not see any reason for transferring O.A. No. 79/P/ 2001 from DRT, Pune to DRT-I, Mumbai and for clubbing the same with O.A. No. 267 of 1999 for simultaneous hearing of these original applications by DRT-I, Mumbai. For these reasons, this transfer petition will have to be rejected. Accordingly, following Order is passed: ORDER Transfer Petition No. 24 of 2002 is hereby dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.