Transfer of Execution Proceedings to DRT without Specific Provision: Court's Inherent Powers in Action

The court allowed the transfer of execution proceedings to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, despite the absence of a specific provision for post-enactment transfers under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The court invoked its inherent powers to facilitate the transfer, emphasizing the absence of any prohibition against such action. Consequently, the court dismissed the execution application, aligning with the decision to transfer proceedings and demonstrating a balance between statutory provisions, precedent, and the court's inherent powers in ensuring justice.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction to transfer execution proceedings to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
2. Exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the court for transferring execution petition.
3. Dismissal of the execution application.

Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction to transfer execution proceedings to the Debts Recovery Tribunal:
The judgment-debtors filed C.A. No. 55 of 2005 seeking transfer of execution to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, citing the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The decree-holder relied on precedents to argue for the transfer, including judgments from the Bombay High Court and this court. The judgment-debtors contended that there was no provision for transfer of applications filed after the enactment of the RDB Act in 1993. However, an order dated December 18, 1998, showed that the parties consented to filing the execution petition in the present court. The court acknowledged that the RDB Act's transfer provisions applied only to pending proceedings as of June 24, 1993. Despite this, the court invoked its inherent powers, noting that there was no express provision preventing such a transfer. The court ultimately allowed C.A. No. 55 of 2005, transferring the execution proceedings to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh.

2. Exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the court for transferring execution petition:
The court discussed the inherent powers of the court, emphasizing that these powers can be utilized to serve the ends of justice as long as they do not conflict with statutory provisions. In this case, the court found that there was no explicit or implicit prohibition against exercising inherent powers to transfer the execution petition to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Despite the arguments presented by the judgment-debtor, the court concluded that inherent powers could be invoked in this situation to achieve justice, leading to the decision to transfer the execution proceedings.

3. Dismissal of the execution application:
Following the decision to transfer the execution proceedings to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, the court addressed C.A. No. 415 of 1999, filed by the judgment-debtors seeking dismissal of the execution application. Given the transfer of proceedings and the decree-holder's statement expressing intent to proceed against the guarantors in execution, C.A. No. 415 of 1999 was dismissed. This dismissal aligned with the overall decision to transfer the execution proceedings, thereby concluding this aspect of the case.

Overall, the judgment dealt with the jurisdictional aspects of transferring execution proceedings to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the RDB Act, the exercise of inherent powers by the court, and the consequent dismissal of the execution application. The court's analysis and decision-making process highlighted the interplay between statutory provisions, precedent, and the court's inherent powers in ensuring the administration of justice in the case at hand.

---