Exclusive Tribunal jurisdiction for bank debt recovery overrides Companies Act restrictions on pending execution and Order 9 Rule 13 proceedings.

The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was applied as a special statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal for bank debt recovery, including adjudication and execution. The term "proceeding" in section 31 was read broadly, so pending execution-related matters and applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC were treated as transferable to the Tribunal. Section 34 gave the later Act overriding effect, and sections 442, 446 and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 were held to yield insofar as they conflicted with recovery proceedings by banks and financial institutions. Leave of the company court was therefore unnecessary, and such pending matters fell within the Tribunal's exclusive domain.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings pending under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the pending execution-related proceedings stood transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. (ii) Whether section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, overrode the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so as to prevent transfer or continuation before the Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings pending under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the pending execution-related proceedings stood transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of sections 17, 18 and 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal in matters relating to recovery of bank debts. The expression "proceeding" in section 31 was applied broadly, and execution proceedings as well as applications under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were treated as covered by the transfer provision. In view of the Tribunal's constitution and the pendency of these matters on the appointed date, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to continue with them.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 and the execution-related proceedings were liable to be transferred to the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, overrode the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so as to prevent transfer or continuation before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The overriding clause in section 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was applied to hold that, at the stage of adjudication and execution, the Tribunal and Recovery Officer have exclusive jurisdiction. The provisions of sections 442, 446 and 537 of the Companies Act, 1956 were held to yield to the later special statute in so far as recovery by banks and financial institutions is concerned. Leave of the company court was therefore unnecessary for continuation of the recovery proceedings, and objections based on section 446 could not defeat the statutory transfer.

Conclusion: Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not prevail over the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Final Conclusion: The pending matters were held to fall within the Tribunal's exclusive domain, and the High Court declined to retain or proceed with them. The ancillary stay application was rejected, and the records were directed to be sent to the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: For bank debt recovery matters, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal and overrides inconsistent provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, so pending related proceedings including execution and Order 9 Rule 13 applications stand transferred to the Tribunal.

---