9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of the term "debt" as defined in section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Summary: 1. The suit was filed by Vijaya Bank against an advocate for recovery of a specified amount. The defendant argued that the Tribunal under the Act lacks jurisdiction as the claimed amount does not relate to the bank's business activity as per section 2(g) of the Act. 2. The key issue revolves around defining the term "debt" as per section 2(g) of the Act. The plaintiff's claim involves disputes over rent payments and legal services provided by the defendant, who was on the bank's legal panel. 3. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant did not deposit the full rent amount in court, leading to the suit for recovery of the outstanding balance. The suit includes principal and interest amounts, totaling a significant sum. 4. The central question is whether the suit qualifies as a claim for "debt" under section 2(g) of the Act. 5. The term "debt" is defined in section 2(g) of the Act, encompassing liabilities alleged as due from a person by a bank during its business activities, including interest, and legally recoverable on the application date. 6. The definition of "debt" clarifies that it includes any liability, secured or unsecured, arising during the bank's business activities under applicable laws, and must be legally recoverable at the application date. 7. The defendant's challenge focuses on whether the liability is related to the bank's business activity, as required by the Act. 8. The judgment emphasizes that the term "business activity" in the Act refers to activities necessary for banking operations, such as renting premises for office or staff accommodation. Therefore, the rent deposit transaction falls within the scope of "business activity." Separate Judgment: The defendant's application challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was dismissed, and the suit was transferred to the Tribunal for further proceedings.
|
