TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osts and future interest at the rate of 19.25 per cent. per annum. After the aforesaid decree was passed defendant No. 3 has filed an application (I.A. No. 3542 of 1985 under Order 9, rule 13, CPC) and later on defendant No. 2 also filed a similar application (I.A. No. 4076 of 1985) both under Order 9, rule 13, CPC, for setting aside the ex parte decree against them. Defendant No. 2 having died, Shri Chand Raina, his son, the only legal representative was substituted for him. These applications remained undisposed of and in the meantime, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "the RDB Act") came into force. The proceedings have not yet been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal established under the RDB Act and an objection has been taken on behalf of defendant No. 3 that as defendants Nos. 1 and 4 have gone into liquidation the proceedings are not liable to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Subsequently, another I.A. No. 1179 of 2000 under section 151 has also been filed by defendant No. 3 to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding with the execution proceeding pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and for stay of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 970] 40 Comp. Cas. 927 (SC) ; AIR 1970 SC 1973. Learned counsel for the official liquidator has supported him. Whereas learned counsel for the plaintiff has disputed the contentions and has contended that under section 31 of the RDB Act, all the suits and the proceedings which fall within the purview of the RDB Act pending on the appointed date in any court stand transferred to the Tribunal. The proceedings contemplated would include all proceedings relating to the matter involved in the suit including execution proceedings and the proceedings under Order 9, rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. These proceedings thus automatically stand transferred to the Tribunal on the appointed date and this court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the same and/or to pass any order thereon. He has relied on the judgment in Risk Capital and Technology Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Harnath Singh Bapna [1997] 89 Comp. Cas. 277 (Delhi) ; [1997] 65 DLT 527. He has also contended that the RDB Act is a special Act and overrides the provisions of the Companies Act including those of its section 446 in view of the mandatory provisions of sections 18, 31 and 34 of the RDB Act, which confer exclusive ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in section 17. 31. Transfer of pending cases. (1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before any court. 34. Act to have overriding effect. (1) Save as otherwise provided in subsection (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs under Order 9, rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code pending in this court at the instance of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are liable to be transferred to the Tribunal and this court cannot proceed with the same. Now the question is whether section 446 of the Companies Act has overriding effect on the provisions of the RDB Act. This question has been considered in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank [2000] 101 Comp. Cas. 64 (SC) ; [2000] 4 JT 411 SC by the Supreme Court in detail as to the impact of the provisions of the RDB Act on the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, under five points. Under point No. 1, it has been held that the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act are exclusive so far as the question of adjudication of the liability of the defendant/debtor to the bank is concerned. It has also been held that the proceedings in section 31 of that Act includes an execution proceedings pending before a civil court before the commencement of the Act and the suits and the proceedings so pending on the date of the Act stand transferred to the Tribunal and have to be disposed of "in the same manner" as applications under section 19. Under points Nos. 2 and 3, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
