Debenture trustee recovery claim falls outside bank debt jurisdiction; civil court jurisdiction remains available.

A suit brought by a financial institution as debenture trustee to recover sums due to debenture holders was held not to be a claim for recovery of a debt due to a bank or financial institution under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Act's definition of "debt" and its ouster of civil court jurisdiction were construed in light of its object and read strictly, so the forum applies only where the institution seeks recovery of its own dues. Because the trustee's role was representative and its own claim was only nominal remuneration, civil court jurisdiction was not barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit instituted by a financial institution in its capacity as debenture trustee for recovery of amounts due to debenture holders is a claim for recovery of a debt due to a bank or financial institution under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so as to oust the civil court's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The definition of "debt" and the jurisdictional provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 must be read in the context of the statute's object, which is to provide a special forum for expeditious recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The entire plaint has to be examined to ascertain whether the claim is really one for recovery of the institution's own dues. Here, the substantial amount claimed was the money subscribed by debenture holders, and the trustee's own claim was only a nominal remuneration. The debenture trustee was acting as a facilitator and representative of the debenture holders, not enforcing a liability due to itself as a financial institution. The phrase "any liability claimed by a bank or financial institution" was construed in harmony with the preamble and section 17 to mean a liability due to the bank or financial institution on its own behalf. The exclusion of civil court jurisdiction under section 18, being an ouster clause, had to be strictly construed.

Conclusion: The suit was not one for recovery of a debt due to a financial institution within the meaning of the Act, and the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred.

Final Conclusion: The special recovery forum under the Act is confined to claims where the bank or financial institution seeks recovery of its own dues, and not to claims pursued by it in a trustee capacity for third-party beneficiaries.

Ratio Decidendi: For the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, a "debt" is a liability due to a bank or financial institution on its own behalf, and not a liability merely claimed or recovered by it for others in a representative or trustee capacity.

---