Decided on October 17,2003



- (1.) The Recovery of Debts of Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was promulgated by the Parliament to provide for the "expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks...." The present case is a classic example of the manner in which a litigant can delay the proceedings and use the process of law to defeat its purpose. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.
(2.) On June 20, 2000, the Federal Bank Limited filed a petition under S.19 of the Act for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,28,56,710.39 from the petitioner. An objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition was raised. It was alleged that the financial arrangements had been made with a Consortium of Banks. The 1st respondent was one of the three Banks, which had provided financial facilities. Thus, the petition under S.19 was not competent. The objection was considered by the Tribunal. Vide Order dated February 27, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Ext. P-5, the objection was overruled. The petitioner challenged the order by filing a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution viz. O.P. No. 2848/2002. However, it was dismissed as not pressed. A copy of the Order dated March 20, 2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court has been produced as Ext. P-8. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. The Order dated February 27,2002 was challenged. The Appellate Tribunal examined the matter and found that the objection had been rightly overruled. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. A copy of the Order dated October 25, 2002 passed by the Appellate Tribunal has been produced as Ext. P-17. Aggrieved by the orders at Exts. P-5 and P-17, the petitioner has approached this Court. It alleges that the petition filed by the 1st respondent viz. the Federal Bank Limited was incompetent. Thus, the two orders are vitiated. It prays that both the orders be quashed.
(3.) The first respondent has filed a counter - affidavit. The averments in the petition have been controverted. It has been inter alia pointed out that the petition is competent. The Bank is not precluded from making a claim for recovery of the money advanced to the borrower. The instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India are directory. In the application filed by the respondent - Bank, the petitioner - Company had made a counter claim. The loan transactions and the documents executed by the petitioner in favour of the Bank were not denied. Thus, the respondent prays that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating its claim.;

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