Court jurisdiction to enforce agency obligations survived transfer to DRT, where an undertaking and nil liability certificate covenant were breached.

The Bombay HC held that transfer of the suit to the Debts Recovery Tribunal did not oust its jurisdiction to enforce obligations arising from an agency agreement executed in proceedings before it. The dispute concerned the erstwhile Court Receiver's agent's contractual and statutory liabilities, including the covenant to discharge liabilities, furnish periodic nil liability certificates, and comply with an express undertaking given through its constituted attorney. Because the agent remained answerable for breach of those terms, the Court enforced the undertaking and granted the directions sought.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court retained jurisdiction to direct the erstwhile agent of the Court Receiver to discharge liabilities under the agency agreement and furnish a nil liability certificate despite transfer of the suit to the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The suit had been transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, but the dispute before the Court was not an exercise of transferred recovery jurisdiction. It concerned enforcement of obligations voluntarily assumed by the Court Receiver's agent under an agency agreement executed in proceedings before the Court, including the covenant to discharge all contractual and statutory liabilities and to furnish periodic nil liability certificates. The agent had also given an express undertaking through its constituted attorney to comply with those obligations. The Court held that an agent appointed under its own order remains answerable to it for breach of the agency terms and that the Court had ample jurisdiction to enforce the undertaking.

Conclusion: The Court had jurisdiction to enforce the agency obligations and the undertaking, and the directions sought against the erstwhile agent were granted.

---