- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Question of law that arises for consideration in these appeals is : if the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under Section 3 (1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the 'act') has jurisdiction to grant ad interim ex parte order of injunction or stay against the defendant on an application filed by the bank or financial institution for recovery of debt as defined under clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act. Tribunal under clause (o) of Section 2 of the Act means the Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. These appeals are from the judgments of the Calcutta High Court given on petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution holding that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant ex parte orders under the Act. It is further held on merit as well that the Tribunal was wrong in granting an ex parte order of injunction.
(3.) When we see Preamble to the Act, it provides for the establishment of Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Under Section 17 of the Act a Tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. There is also a provision for establishment of Appellate Tribunal. Under Section 18 of the Act, no Court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters specified in Section 17 of the Act. This bar of jurisdiction, however, does not apply to the Supreme Court or to a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It is not necessary for us to consider as to how a Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal are established and their qualifications.;