Bank dues as "debt" under the 1993 Act can trigger automatic transfer of pending recovery suits to the Tribunal.

A bank's claim is "debt" under the 1993 Act if it is a subsisting liability alleged as due and legally recoverable on the relevant date; prior adjudication by a civil court is not required. Sections 17 and 18 vest exclusive recovery jurisdiction in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and section 31 automatically transfers pending civil suits for recovery of such debts when the Tribunal becomes competent. The Act's overriding clause in section 34 prevails over inconsistent laws. A defence based on insurance or guarantee did not, on its face, extinguish the principal liability or defeat the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The pending suits were therefore transferable to the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether suits for recovery of bank dues pending in a civil court stood transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal on its establishment under the 1993 Act, and whether the amounts claimed, though disputed, constituted "debt" within the meaning of the Act.

Analysis: The definition of "debt" in section 2(g) covers a liability alleged as due by a bank, provided it is subsisting and legally recoverable on the relevant date. The expression "alleged as due" is material and does not require prior adjudication by a competent forum before the Act can apply. Under sections 17 and 18, the Tribunal acquires exclusive jurisdiction over applications for recovery of debts due to banks, and section 31 provides for automatic transfer of pending suits whose cause of action would fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction if it had arisen after the Tribunal's establishment. The overriding clause in section 34 gives the Act precedence over inconsistent laws. The defence based on insurance or guarantee did not, on its face, extinguish the principal liability or defeat the prima facie subsistence of the debt for jurisdictional purposes.

Conclusion: The suits were proceedings for recovery of debts within the Act, and the pending civil suits had to stand transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The High Court's contrary view was incorrect.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court's transfer orders were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of the 1993 Act, a bank's claim need only be a liability alleged as due and subsisting on the date of proceedings; once that condition is met, pending suits for recovery of such debt transfer automatically to the Tribunal under section 31.

---