Appeal No. R-180 of 2012. Case: Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Bhanu Oil and Dal Mills and Ors.. Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Appeal No. R-180 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Sunil Bhalla, Mr. Vikram Bhalla, Advocates for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Hari Ram, Advocate for the Respondent No. 7 |
| Judges | R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 19, 2(g), 20 |
| Citation | III (2013) BC 8, 2013 119 RD 197 |
| Judgement Date | November 29, 2012 |
| Court | Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson)
1. The Counsel for the parties are heard. This is an Appeal preferred under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur on 10th September, 2012. By this order the Tribunal has rejected the Original Application so preferred by the appellant-Bank. The Tribunal arrived at a finding that the transaction as such does not come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because the claim is not covered by the definition of 'debt' in Section 2(g) of the Act 1993. The facts leading to the present case are that the respondent No. 5 Jai Durga Commodity Trading Private Limited issued a cheque in the name of the respondent No. 1 Bhanu Oil and Dal Mills. The cheque was issued of the appellant-Bank and after receipt of the cheque by the respondent No. 1, the same was presented for its collection to the State Bank of India, the respondent No. 8. The said cheque was cleared by the appellant-Bank. This is also to be seen that when the cheque was issued, the account of the respondent No. 5 was not closed and on the date when the cheque was cleared by the appellant-Bank the account was closed. The cheque was cleared by the appellant-Bank in favour of the respondent No. 1. When the appellant came to know that the cheque has been wrongly cleared by them then they instituted the proceedings for recovery of the said amount from the respondents which was paid by the appellant-Bank. The amount was not returned by the respondents therefore, the Bank preferred an application under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993.
2. The preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the facts so pleaded in the Original Application so preferred by the appellant-Bank does not come within the definition of the 'debt' in Section 2(g) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 and the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application of the appellant-Bank. The order of dismissal of the said Original Application is challenged by the appellant-Bank by filing the present Appeal.
3. This is to be seen that the word "debt" has been defined in Section 2(g) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 which is reproduced as under:
'debt' means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed 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 undertaken by the Bank or the Financial Institution or the consortium...
To continue reading
Request your trial