Unit Trust of India Vs. G.V. Films Ltd. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderjagadeesan, j.1. the applicant has filed this application to recall c.s. no. 253 of 1993 in t.a. no. 192 of 1997 which has been transferred to the debts recovery tribunal at chennai. the applicant is the first defendant in the suit. the 1st respondent has filed the suit or recovery of a sum of rs. 51,75,155/- together with interest at 24% per annum. the plaintiffs case is that the dividend has been paid to the 1st defendant wrongly when the dividend is due to the 2nd defendant in the suit/2nd respondent herein.2. learned senior counsel mr. k. ramachandran on behalf of the applicant contended that the debts recovery tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit because the suit is one for recovery of the amount, the dividend which was paid to the applicant is sought to be recovered in order to pay to the 2nd respondent herein, who is entitled for the same. hence the dispute is between the defendants 1 and 2 as to who is entitled is between the defendants 1 and 2 as to who is entitled for the divided amount and the plaintiff is seeking for the adjustment of the amount between the defendants by way of filling the suit. hence this amount will not fall within the definition of 'debt' as defined under the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993.3. i am unable to agree with the learned senior counsel because the act has been provided for the establishment of tribunal for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. hence it cannot be said that only if the debt is admitted by the defendant, the tribunal will have jurisdiction and not in any other cases. equally section 19 prescribes the procedure before the tribunal. it empowers the tribunal to hear both parties and pass orders on application as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice. section 19 sub-clause 4 reads as follows:-'the tribunal, may, after giving the applicant and the defendant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the application as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice'.when the tribunal is empowered to pass orders to ensure justice, then the tribunal has got jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to liability of the debt or after hearing their objections. the act do not enumerate that the tribunal has to pass a decree merely on the basis of the application without hearing the respondent or only in case where the respondent admits their liability. when such envisages are not provided under the statute, the tribunal has got every power or jurisdiction to try all the questions arising before it.4. moreover, the definition of debt is as follows:-'debt' means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is alleged as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity under taken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or otherwise and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on the date of the application'.a perusal the definition clearly establishes that the tribunal can decide any liability which is alleged as due. in this case, it cannot be said that the dispute is interest on between the defendants. if the plaintiff has mistakenly paid the dividend to the 1st defendant, naturally the plaintiff is hand to collect the same and pay to the 2nd defendant. whether the dividend has been correctly paid to the 1st defendant or not can be decided by the tribunal.5. as already pointed out, when the object of the enactment is to give speedy relief for the banks and the financial institutions, and empowering the tribunal to hear the cases for recovery of the debts and for matters connected therewith and incidentally thereto, i am of the opinion that there cannot be any restriction with regard to the jurisdiction of the tribunal to try the issues, even in respect of main claim. hence there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

Jagadeesan, J.

1. The applicant has filed this application to recall C.S. No. 253 of 1993 in T.A. No. 192 of 1997 which has been transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai. The applicant is the first defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent has filed the suit or recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,75,155/- together with interest at 24% per annum. The plaintiffs case is that the dividend has been paid to the 1st defendant wrongly when the dividend is due to the 2nd defendant in the suit/2nd respondent herein.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. Ramachandran on behalf of the applicant contended that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the Suit because the Suit is one for recovery of the amount, the dividend which was paid to the applicant is sought to be recovered in order to pay to the 2nd respondent herein, who is entitled for the same. Hence the dispute is between the defendants 1 and 2 as to who is entitled is between the defendants 1 and 2 as to who is entitled for the divided amount and the plaintiff is seeking for the adjustment of the amount between the defendants by way of filling the Suit. Hence this amount will not fall within the definition of 'Debt' as defined under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

3. I am unable to agree with the Learned Senior Counsel because the Act has been provided for the establishment of Tribunal for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Hence it cannot be said that only if the debt is admitted by the defendant, the Tribunal will have jurisdiction and not in any other cases. Equally Section 19 prescribes the procedure before the Tribunal. It empowers the Tribunal to hear both parties and pass orders on application as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice. Section 19 Sub-clause 4 reads as follows:-

'The Tribunal, may, after giving the applicant and the defendant an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders on the application as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice'.

When the tribunal is empowered to pass orders to ensure justice, then the tribunal has got jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to liability of the debt or after hearing their objections. The Act do not enumerate that the tribunal has to pass a decree merely on the basis of the application without hearing the respondent or only in case where the respondent admits their liability. When such envisages are not provided under the statute, the tribunal has got every power or jurisdiction to try all the questions arising before it.

4. Moreover, the definition of debt is as follows:-

'Debt' means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is alleged as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity under taken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or whether payable under a decree or order of any Civil Court or otherwise and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on the date of the application'.

A perusal the definition clearly establishes that the Tribunal can decide any liability which is alleged as due. In this case, it cannot be said that the dispute is interest on between the defendants. If the plaintiff has mistakenly paid the dividend to the 1st defendant, naturally the plaintiff is hand to collect the same and pay to the 2nd defendant. Whether the dividend has been correctly paid to the 1st defendant or not can be decided by the tribunal.

5. As already pointed out, when the object of the enactment is to give speedy relief for the banks and the financial institutions, and empowering the tribunal to hear the cases for recovery of the debts and for matters connected therewith and incidentally thereto, I am of the opinion that there cannot be any restriction with regard to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the issues, even in respect of main claim. Hence there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed.