Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the bar of jurisdiction under section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 operated against the civil court order passed after the Act came into force but before the Tribunal was established, and whether the impugned order was therefore without jurisdiction.
Analysis: Section 18 excludes the jurisdiction of courts and authorities only "on and from the appointed day". Section 2(c) defines the appointed day, in relation to a Tribunal, as the date on which the Tribunal is established under section 3. The crucial date was therefore not the date on which the Act came into force, but the date on which the Tribunal was actually established. Since the civil court's order was passed before the Tribunal was established, the jurisdictional bar under section 18 had not yet commenced. Section 31 also contemplates transfer of pending cases to the Tribunal, which then proceeds from the stage reached before transfer or from an earlier stage as it may deem fit.
Conclusion: The civil court order was not jurisdiction under section 18, and the challenge to it on that ground failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the bar of jurisdiction under section 18 begins only from the date the Tribunal is established, not from the date the Act comes into force.