PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. TATA INFOTECH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal is filed by the appellant/original applicant Punjab National Bank being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai on Exhibit No. 7 in Original Application No. 65/2003. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer held that the amount which was sought to be recovered by the applicant Bank from the defendants, did not amount to "Debt" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and, therefore, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the original application filed by the Bank. Holding this, he ordered the original application to be returned to the applicant Bank for being presented before appropriate forum. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the bank.

(2.) I have heard Mr. D'lima for the appellant Bank and Mr. Purohit for the respondent. I have also gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my view, the learned Presiding Officer has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.

(3.) THE case of the respondents is that the original application filed by the Bank is based on an action in tort namely a claim arising out of an alleged breach of contract and for consequential damages. THEir contention is that the claim for damages for the alleged failure of the respondents in providing software solution to the Bank would not amount to "Debt" as contemplated under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It is contended by them that there is no Banker-Customer relationship between the applicant bank and the defendants/respondents nor does the claim of the Bank is arising out of any financial/lending transaction. According to them, the claim for return of money paid under the contract for the development and installation of a software solution and damages for alleged breach of contract is essentially an action for unliquidated damages and therefore cannot be said to be a "Debt" as defined by the DRT Act in Section 2(g).