1. This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos.
1 and 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on interlocutory application No. 421 of 2002 in Original Application No.266 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer rejected the application made by the appellants for stay of the proceedings in the DRT till final decision of the Complaint Case No. 41 of 1996 pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai with exemplary costs of Rs. 2500/- payable to the applicant Bank by each appellants i.e. defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by way of demand draft on or before 19.8.2002.
2. I have heard Mr. Deo for the appellants and Mr. Bhagwat for the respondent No. 1 Bank. I have also perused the proceedings.
The respondent No. 1 namely the Sangli Bank had filed Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 1999 against the appellants and two more, in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Amravati for recovery of Rs. 18,32,512/-.
After filing of the written statement by the defendants, the suit came to be transferred to DRT Mumbai and thereafter to DRT Nagpur and was numbered as O.A. No. 266 of 2001.
When the case was pending before the Civil Court, the defendant Nos.
1 and 2 filed application making certain allegations against the Bank. Contention of the defendant No. 1, who was proprietor of M/s.
Rohit Travels, was that when he approached the Bank for obtaining loan for running tourist buses, the Bank stated that the loan could be arranged only if the buses manufactured by M/s Eicher Motors Limited were purchased by the appellants. It was further alleged by the appellants, in the said application, that the Bank further directed the defendant No. 1 (appellant No. 1 herein) to approach local distributor of the said company. Thereafter, the loan was arranged by the Bank as per the internal arrangement between M/s.
Eicher Motors Limited and Small Industries Development Bank of India, Bhopal.
It was grievance of the appellant that the applicant Bank namely the Sangli Bank acted in collusion with M/s. Eicher Motors Limited and Small Industries Development Bank of India and two defective second hand old buses were supplied to the appellants. The loan was sanctioned by the Bank under "Deferred Payment Bank Guarantee Scheme" in pursuance of which the said two buses were delivered to the appellants and bills of exchange were negotiated in favour of the M/s. Eicher Motors Limited by the applicant Bank under which the payments were to be made in instalments between the period of 24.10.1994 to 22.2.1999 with an understanding that the appellants would deposit their earnings with the applicant Bank and from out of the amount so deposited, the bills of exchange would be honoured.
Further contention of the appellants (original defendants Nos. 1 and 2) was that the Sangli Bank thus acted in collusion with M/s. Eicher Motors Limited and Small Industries Development Bank of India and duped the defendant No. 1 by supplying second hand defective buses which could run hardly for six months and during that period the defendants were required to make several repairs very often and mechanics certified that the said buses were defective. In view of these circumstances, the defendant No. 1 had also asked the Bank not to make payment to Small Industries Development Bank of India, but without consent and knowledge of the defendant No. 1, the applicant Bank encashed FDRs to the extent of Rs. 4.25 lacs from out of the FDRs of Rs. 5.50 lacs and after the said encashment, the Bank informed the defendant No. 1 vide letter dated 3.4.1995.
Under these circumstances the defendant No. 1 filed the complaint case No. 41/1996 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai against the applicant Bank namely The Sangli Bank and Small Industries Development Bank of India, Bhopal, claiming reliefs that as M/s. Eicher Motors Limited had supplied second hand and defective vehicles, it was not entitled to recover any amount towards the costs of the said two vehicles and therefore, direction be issued to the applicant Bank i.e. the Sangli Bank not to make further payments towards the costs of the said two vehicles to the Small Industries Development Bank of India and M/s. Eicher Motors Limited, seeking further direction to the applicant Bank i.e.
the Sangli Bank to recover entire amount loan due and payable by the defendant No. 1 from M/s. Eicher Motors Limited only. The defendant No. 1 also claimed further relief seeking direction to M/s. Eicher Motors Limited to supply two brand new vehicles at the original costs and the amount of interest payable to the applicant Bank by the defendant No. 1 Be made payable by M/s. Eicher Motors Limited.
In that application, the defendant No. 1 also claimed relief for refund of Rs. 4.25 lacs by the applicant Bank.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai, after taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, on 22.9.1997 passed an order directing the said company i.e. M/s.
Eicher Motors Limited to replace the said two vehicles by vehicles of like nature and with a further direction that on failure to refund Rs. 14,58,000/-with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of delivery of the said vehicles till actual payment.
M/s. Eicher Motors Limited being aggrieved by the said decision, given by a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai preferred first Appeal No. 502/1995 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, who in turn set aside the order of the State Commission and remanded the matter back to the State Commission for fresh hearing.
Stating all these facts in the application, which was made by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the Civil Court, they prayed that the original application, which was pending in the DRT be stayed till final decision of the said complaint case filed by the defendant No.4. The learned Presiding Officer, after hearing both the sides rejected the application made by the appellants for staying proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which was filed by the Sangli Bank against the present appellants and two others. Being aggrieved, the present Misc. Appeal is filed by the original defendants.
5. Having heard both the Advocates at length and having gone through the proceedings, in my opinion, no fault can be found with the impugned order. First of all, it has to be taken note of that Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') was enacted by the Parliament for expeditious adjudication and recovery of dues due to the Banks and financial institutions and the original application filed by the Sangli Bank against the present appellants is for recovery of the Bank's dues from the appellants. If the complaint of the appellants with respect to M/s.
Eicher Motors Limited for supplying defective buses is pending before the Consumer Forum, it has nothing to do with the recovery of the dues of Sangli Bank against the present appellants. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that against the decision given by the State Commission, only M/s. Eicher Motors Limited filed appeal and no appeal was filed by the Sangli Bank. The issue pending before the Consumer Forum is an independent and separate issue and has nothing to do with the issue of recovery of dues, due to the Sangli Bank from the present appellants. The learned Presiding Officer was therefore right in not granting stay to the proceedings in the DRT. Both the proceedings will take their own course and will reach their logical end as both the Acts operate in their respective spheres. I therefore, uphold finding of the learned Presiding Officer and pass following order: