T.A. No. 160 of 2002. Case: Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs Puhkar Malhotra and Anr.. Kolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberT.A. No. 160 of 2002
Party NameBharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs Puhkar Malhotra and Anr.
CounselFor Appellant: V. Raja Rao, Adv. and For Respondents: None
JudgesD.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer
IssueRecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 2 and 19(1)
CitationIII (2004) BC 56
Judgement DateAugust 13, 2002
CourtKolkatta Debt Recovery Tribunals


D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer

  1. Mr. V. Raja Rao, the learned Advocate appears for the applicant Bank but neither of the impleaded respondents has appeared this day, in spite of the due service of notice (repeatedly) upon each of them.

  2. January 17, 1992 is the relevant day and date when the applicant Bank instituted one suit by way of presenting a plaint before the Hon'ble Justice Padma Khastagir (as Her Lordship was then) after impleading the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By the said presentation of plaint the suit No. 49 of 1992 there was specifically a prayer for a decree directing those impleaded respondents to pay either jointly or severally the suit amount of Rs. 15,17,869.49 p., together with a further interest at the rate of 17.5% per annum with quarterly rest from January 10, 1992 till date of realisation. Besides the above, there were other prayers expressly contained in that plaint.

  3. The reply to why there was instituted a suit before the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata (Ordinary Original Side Jurisdiction of itself) instead of making one application for recovery of the ascertained claim for the said amount as due from and payable by those respondents under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. LI of 1993), can be afforded to be given in a simple manner, mentioned below:

    On January 17, 1992 there was not found in existence the Debts Recovery Tribunal which is compulsorily to be set up or constituted under Section 3 of the said Act nor was enacted the said Act. It is also known to all where is a right, there is a remedy. At the relevant point of time, though there was a right accruing in favour of the applicant Bank, there was no Debts Recovery Tribunal as such.

  4. Subsequently, and during the pendency of the present suit No. 49 of 1992, it was transferred to the learned Transferring Tribunal where the Suit No. 49 of 1002 got itself renumbered as TA 47 of 1998; and any controversy whether such transferred suit or claim case is maintainable cannot receive any strength or support from this Tribunal. Accordingly, the objection No. 1 which has been found clustering round the question of maintainability of TA 47 of 1998 which has originally been contained in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 meets a straightaway rejection; accordingly the said objection has been rejected.

  5. For the reason of substantiating the cause of action, and for the cause of initiation of an action against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the applicant Bank has been found to have taken much pain in coming across the several stages, the last of which has been found to give birth to the concept of lex causae in the plaint presented on the clay and date, mentioned earlier. What are those stages and for what purposes such plaint was presented before the Hon'ble High Court, Kolkata? For the cherished reason for making reply to the above points, this Tribunal is referring to a date i.e. February 16, 1990 which is the specific day and date witnessing the sanction of cash credit facility stage to a limit of Rs. 3,50,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1, who is incidentally the proprietor of M/s. Maharaja Trading Corporation having its situs at 170, M.G. Road, Kolkata-700007 and also being engaged in the business of distributorship and the stocks of tea, medicines manufactured by the Tea Companies, at the request of the latter.

  6. The day mentioned earlier also witnessed a transaction entered into between the contending parties as above whereby the applicant Bank was authorised to hold the recurring deposit account No. 60 of 1990 as emerged for the aforesaid facility, which was in fact...

To continue reading

Request your trial