UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR BHARATIYA
LAWS(DR)-2004-9-7
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 30,2004

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.K.Mohapatra, - (1.) THIS pertains to Preliminary Objection filed by the defendant Nos. 4(b) 4(e) and 4(c) on 8.4.2004 questioning the maintainability of the instant P.T. No. 32/2002.1 have heard the parties and perused the case records including the rejoinder of applicant Bank dated 17.6.2004 and written arguments of parties.
(2.) The first contention of the defendant Nos. 4(h), 4(c) and 4(c) is that the learned Sub Judge, Giridih, where the present suit was instituted had no jurisdiction in view of coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as 'Act'). It is their contention that since the suit has been instituted in a Court which lacks jurisdiction, the same should be dismissed. In this connection, it has been well established that the vital date for deciding the issue of jurisdiction is not the date when the DRT Act was passed but the date when the concerned Tribunal was established. The jurisdiction of Bank cases exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs is vested with the Tribunal under the DRT Act from the date of its establishment.
(3.) IT was held in Bhanu Construction Company Private Limited v. Andhra Bank, VIII (2000) SLT 689=I (2001) BC 396 (SC)=AIR 2001 SC 477 that, "IT will be noticed that 'the appointed day' in the Act in relation to a Tribunal means the day on which the Tribunal is established and not the day on which the Act came into force....... For the purpose of Section 18 of the Act what is relevant is not the date of passing of the DRT Act but the date of establishment of the Tribunal.";


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