2002 (1) TMI 1215 - HC - Companies Law

Decree Amount Dictates Tribunal's Jurisdiction: Rs. 10 Lakhs Rule Explained

The judge upheld the Debt Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction despite the original claim being less than Rs. 10 lakhs, as the decree amount, including ... Transfer of pending cases Issues:Challenge to the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal due to the amount claimed in the suit being less than Rs. 10 lakhs before the enforcement of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.Analysis:The judgment-debtors challenged exhibit No. P-5 order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the execution application for a decree passed by a sub-court when the original claim was less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The petitioners contended that the total amount due, including interest, exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs was due to a delay in executing the decree. The petitioners relied on a previous decision by the same judge in UCO Bank v. Registrar, Debt Recovery Tribunal, to support their argument.The judge acknowledged the previous decision but noted that in a similar case, it was held that the amount at the time of the suit's institution determined jurisdiction under section 31. Despite the original claim being less than Rs. 10 lakhs, the decree amount, including interest, exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs due to accrued interest. The judge highlighted the difference in this case where the Tribunal entertained the execution application despite the amount being less than Rs. 10 lakhs at the suit's inception, creating a potential jurisdictional issue.The judge was made aware of a Supreme Court decision in Punjab National Bank v. Chajju Ram, which clarified that the amount claimed in an execution application falls within the scope of 'cause of action' in section 31. The Supreme Court's interpretation was that if the decree amount exceeded Rs. 10 lakhs, it constituted the cause of action for filing an execution application before the Tribunal. Consequently, the judge concluded that exhibit No. P-5 was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction based on the Supreme Court's ruling. The judge emphasized that interference through articles 226 or 227 was not warranted when a specialized Tribunal had jurisdiction, dismissing the original petition based on the Supreme Court's decision.In summary, the judgment addressed the challenge to the Debt Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction based on the amount claimed in the suit being less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The judge reconciled conflicting decisions by considering the decree amount, including interest, and ultimately upheld the Tribunal's jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 'cause of action' in section 31. The dismissal of the original petition was based on the principle of non-interference with specialized Tribunals when a separate remedy was available.