Remanded suits retain continuity under the recovery statute, and counter-claim styled reliefs still fall within Tribunal jurisdiction.

A remanded suit regains continuity from its original institution, so a matter disposed of before the special recovery tribunal came into force but restored on appeal remains pending on the relevant date and is liable to transfer to the Tribunal. The jurisdictional bar and overriding transfer provisions of the special recovery statute must be construed purposively to avoid leaving a remanded bank recovery suit outside both the Civil Court and the Tribunal. Claims framed as specific performance, injunction or damages were treated as set-off or counter-claim where they were in substance linked to the bank's monetary claim, and such claims also fell within the Tribunal's competence. The bank's suit could not be retained in the High Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit that had been disposed of before the Tribunal came into force, but was later restored on remand, must be treated as pending on the relevant date and transferred to the Tribunal; (ii) Whether the bar of jurisdiction and the transfer provisions in the special Act require pending bank recovery suits to be taken out of the Civil Court notwithstanding remand; (iii) Whether the debtor-company's earlier suit, though framed as one for specific performance and injunctions, was in substance a set-off or counter-claim falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and whether its pendency justified retention of the bank's suit in the High Court.

Issue (i): Whether a suit that had been disposed of before the Tribunal came into force, but was later restored on remand, must be treated as pending on the relevant date and transferred to the Tribunal.

Analysis: A remand by the appellate court revives the suit with continuity and effaces the intermediate disposal, except to the extent of matters finally decided in appeal. The suit is treated in law as pending from its original institution and not as freshly instituted on the date of remand. The appeal having been allowed and the decree set aside, the suit regained its original continuity. Applying that principle, the suit remained a pending suit for the purposes of transfer under the special Act.

Conclusion: The suit was to be treated as pending on the relevant date and was liable to be transferred to the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether the bar of jurisdiction and the transfer provisions in the special Act require pending bank recovery suits to be taken out of the Civil Court notwithstanding remand.

Analysis: The statutory scheme barred civil court jurisdiction in matters within the Tribunal's domain and conferred overriding effect on the special Act. A construction that left the remanded suit neither triable by the Civil Court nor transferable to the Tribunal would create an impermissible stalemate and defeat the object of speedy recovery. The provisions were therefore given a purposive construction so that pending suits of the relevant kind would be dealt with by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The High Court could not retain the suit on its original side, and the suit had to be transferred to the Tribunal.

Issue (iii): Whether the debtor-company's earlier suit, though framed as one for specific performance and injunctions, was in substance a set-off or counter-claim falling within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and whether its pendency justified retention of the bank's suit in the High Court.

Analysis: The reliefs claimed in the debtor-company's suit were inextricably linked with the bank's monetary claim. The allegations that interest was not chargeable or was chargeable only at a lower rate, that instalments were payable, that further finance ought to have been advanced, and that damages should be adjusted, were treated as claims in the nature of counter-claim and set-off. Such claims are equated by the statute to cross-suits and can be adjudicated by the Tribunal along with the bank's claim. The pendency of that suit therefore furnished no reason to keep the bank's suit in the Civil Court.

Conclusion: The debtor-company's suit also fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and its pendency did not justify retention of the bank's suit in the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order retaining the bank's suit in the High Court was set aside, and both connected suits were held to be fit for transfer and adjudication by the Tribunal under the special Act.

Ratio Decidendi: On a purposive construction, a remanded suit under the special recovery statute retains its original continuity and remains subject to transfer and jurisdictional ouster, and claims substantially constituting set-off or counter-claim fall within the Tribunal's competence even if framed as an independent suit.

---