Exclusive DRT jurisdiction controls transferred debt-recovery matters, including directions to an existing Court Receiver after transfer.

Once a debt-recovery suit or proceeding stands transferred under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the civil court's jurisdiction is excluded and exclusive control passes to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. A Court Receiver appointed before transfer does not cease to exist on transfer, but any further directions for the receiver's functioning must come from the Tribunal, not the High Court. The existing receivership may continue for administrative convenience until alternative arrangements are made, yet it remains subject to the Tribunal's supervisory directions in transferred matters.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and transfer of pending matters to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the High Court retained jurisdiction to issue directions to the Court Receiver already appointed, and whether the Receiver would thereafter act subject to the directions of the High Court or the Tribunal.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under sections 17, 18 and 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Debts Recovery Tribunal in matters of recovery of debts and bars the jurisdiction of other courts in such matters. Pending suits and proceedings falling within the Act stand transferred to the Tribunal by operation of law. A receiver appointed before transfer does not cease to exist merely because the suit is transferred; however, once the civil court's jurisdiction is ousted, further directions for the receiver's functioning must emanate from the Tribunal. The Court also noted the practical difficulty arising from the absence of a separate receiver machinery before the Tribunal and treated the existing arrangement as one capable of limited continuation for administrative convenience.

Conclusion: The High Court has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the Court Receiver in transferred matters, and the Court Receiver continues to function subject to the directions of the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that jurisdiction over transferred debt-recovery matters lies with the Tribunal, while the existing Court Receiver may continue only under Tribunal control until appropriate alternative arrangements are made.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a debt-recovery suit or proceeding stands transferred under the special statute, the civil court's jurisdiction is excluded and any receiver already appointed remains subject only to the directions of the Tribunal exercising exclusive jurisdiction over the transferred matter.

---