- (1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notice dated 29.9.97 issued by the Registrar of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, West Bengal.
(2.) The petitioners took loan from the opposite party - Bank i.e. the State Bank of India. As the petitioner failed to repay the debt the O.P.- Bank instituted a Suit viz. Title Suit No. 69/1994 before the ld. Assistant District Judge, Second Court, Barasat. Ultimately, as the petitioners did not appear or contest in time the said Title Suit was fixed for ex parte hearing on 23.2.1995. No written statement was also filed by the petitioners. But on 23.2.95 the petitioners filed an application for re-calling that order of ex- parte hearing. The ld. Court directed the petitioners to serve copy on the O.P.-Bank and fix 7.4.95 for hearing of the petitioners. The said order dated 23.2.95 was communicated along with the next day of hearing i.e. 7.4.95. The petitioners filed the requisite for sending the notice by registered post but on the date fixed i.e. 7.4.95 none appeared for the Bank. Then the Court adjourned the matter till 20.6.1995 and directed the petitioners to issue fresh notice. And on that date also none appeared for the Bank. The Id. Court was also pleased to issue a show-cause notice upon the Bank as to why the suit should not be dismissed and fixed the next date of hearing on 7.8.95. But unfortunately, none appeared even on that date on behalf of the Bank and the suit was dismissed for default at 2.55 P.M. The O.P-Bank thereafter made an application for vacating the order of dismissal and for transfer of the suit to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. But the application was not disposed of on the date fixed and on enquiry by the ld. Advocate appearing for the Bank it could be ascertained that the entire record has been sent to the Tribunal. Thereafter from the Debts Recovery Tribunal the present petitioners received the impugned notice for appearing before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 18.3.98 at 10.30 A.M. This notice has been challenged mainly on the ground that the suit filed by the present O.P was already dismissed for default by the Civil Judge on 7.8.95 and as such the suit was not in existence and there was no question of transferring the suit to the Debts Recovery Tribunal nor the Debts Recovery Tribunal had the authority to issue such a not in connection with the dead suit in other words a suit which is already disposed of finally.
(3.) In this connection, it is necessary to mentioned that the Act under which the Debts Recovery Tribunals was established was passed in 1993. But due to lack of infrastructure the Tribunal could not be established and the Tribunal were established actually at different places on 27.4.94. According to the provisions contained in that Act all matters or suits pending before the Civil Court for recovery of debts filed by the Bank or financial institution shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Tribunal concerned no formal order is necessary it is the statutory provision. Therefore, on 2.7.4.94 all the Civil Courts before which any matter or suit was pending for recovery of debts to any Bank of financial institution have ceased to exercise any jurisdiction over such suits or matters.;