1. The appeal is directed as against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, in IA-137/2000. IA-137/2000 was filed by the defendants for deciding on the preliminary issues. The preliminary issues raised are that the applicant Bank namely, the State Bank of India has no locus standi to file the suit and the amount involved does not relate to debt and the suit is also barred by limitation. The Presiding Officer, DRT, passed the order dismissing the IA.2. Counsel for the appellants submitted that three preliminary objections have been raised by the appellant and on these preliminary objections the suit itself is not maintainable but the Presiding Officer, DRT, has dismissed that petition and the suit itself has to be dismissed and the order passed by the Presiding Officer, DRT, is liable to be set aside. With regard to the first objection that the applicant Bank namely, the SBI has no locus standi to file the suit, Counsel for the appellants submits that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is the party which has to collect the amount from the defendants and the SBI has no locus standi to file the suit, He further submitted that under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDB&FI) Act, 1993, the RBI is not a Bank within the definition of Section 2(d) of the Act and as the amount claimed is due to the RBI, the same will not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
3. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the applicant Bank is the agent of the RBI and it is one of the designated branch of the RBI for purchase of Exim Scrips, REP Licences tendered by the holders during the period 23.3.1992 to 27.2.1993 and the applicant Bank alone has to do this work and had to obtain reimbursement from Reserve Bank of India, Bombay, on the basis of claims and declarations made by it and this case relates to excess payment and the defendants are liable to pay interest for that excess payment. Since that excess payment was repaid without demur or protest, it has been averred in the Original Application (OA) that RBI has instructed the applicant Bank to claim interest from the 1st defendant. It has been set out in the application that the applicant Bank is one of the designated branches of the RBI and it is the agent for the RBI and it is doing the work on the instructions given by the RBI and only as instructed by RBI the applicant Bank has filed the claim against the 1st defendant claiming interest.
4. Counsel for the appellants relies upon the letter addressed by SBI to Union Bank of India dated 19.9.1994 and contends that RBI alone is the partywhich had the transactions and the SBI has no locus standi to file the suit. In 19.9.1994 letter it is stated that the SBI has transferred the amount of Rs. 70 lakhs to RBI through their Bombay main branch, the amount which was credited to the SBI having been transferred to RBI will establish that only RBI is the Bank which continues the transactions and the SBI has no locus standi to file the suit.
5. The RBI on 16,3.1992 sent a Circular to all Scheduled Commercial Banks wherein it is stated that arrangements were being made to purchase Exim Scrips at appropriate premium and the designated branches of SBI will be purchasing these Exim Scrips from 23.3.1992 upto the end of May, 1992 at a premium of 20% of the face value and other instructions have also been given in that Circular. Even in the Circular, the RBI has clearly stated that the designated branches of SBI would be purchasing the Exim Scrips. So the SBI alone had the transactions and it was found that there was excess payment of Rs. 70 lakhs and on the instructions given by the RBI directing the applicant Bank to claim interest, the applicant Bank has filed this OA before the DRT.6. The RBI is not a banking institution under the definition of the RDDB&FI Act and it cannot file the suit. The RBI is the premium banking institution of the country entrusted with a supervisory role over banking and conferred with the authority of issuing binding directions having statutory force. RBI is the Bank having full financial control over the other Banks.
(1) Unless otherwise directed by the Central Government with reference to any place, the Bank may, having regard to public interest, convenience of banking development and such other factors which in its opinion are relevant in this regard, appoint the National Bank, or the State Bank, or a corresponding new Bank constituted under Section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), or a corresponding new Bank constituted under Section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980), or any subsidiary Bank as defined in the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959), as its agent at all places, or at any place in India for such purposes as the Bank may specify.
(2) When any Bank is appointed by the Bank as its agent under Sub-section (1) to receive on behalf of the Bank any payment required to be made into the Bank, or any bill, hundis or other securities required to be delivered into the Bank, under any law or rule, regulations or other instructions having the force of law, the same may be paid or delivered into the Bank so appointed as the agent of the Bank.
8. So under Section 45, the RBI has the right to appoint State Bank as the agent.
"State Bank to act as agent of the Reserve Bank -- (1) The State Bank shall, if so required by the Reserve Bank, act as agent of the Reserve Bank at all places in India where it has a branch and where there is no branch of the banking department of the Reserve Bank, for- (a) paying, receiving, collecting and remitting money, bullion and securities on behalf of any Government in India; and (b) undertaking and transacting any other business which the Reserve Bank may from time-to-time entrust to it." "Other business which the State Bank may transact-- Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the State Bank may carry on and transact the business of banking as defined in Clause (b) of Section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and may engage in one or more of the other forms of business specified in Sub-section of Section 6 of that Act." 11. Accordingly, the State Bank is the agent of the Reserve Bank of India and has transacted the business and has filed this application the OA against the defendants. So I find that the SBI has locus standi to file the suit and to file this OA. The objection raised by the appellant is wholly untenable.
12. The next objection raised is that a debt should have arisen in the ordinary course of business of the Bank or Financial Institution. The applicant Bank has stated thai during the transaction only excess payment was made and on the instructions given by the RBI the applicant Bank has claimed interest by filing this OA. The merits of the case cannot be decided and that has to be decided only in the main OA by letting in evidence. Even with regard to limitation point, the Presiding Officer, DRT, has held that time for filing the OA considered from 12.8.1994 and OA was filed from 7.8.1997 and it is within the period of limitation, 13. With regard to the contention raised by the Counsel for the appellants on the question of claim and the liability of the appellants, that has to be decided only in the main OA and the matter is left open to be decided in the main OA. So far as locus standi question is concerned, the applicant Bank has locus standi to file this application. Presiding Officer, DRT, Ernakulam, has rightly dismissed that petition.