Wide meaning of "debt" under the bank recovery law excludes civil court jurisdiction where the plaint is really for money recovery.

The term "debt" under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was construed broadly to include any liability alleged as due to a bank in the course of business, whether secured or unsecured and whether recoverable under a decree or otherwise, provided it was legally recoverable on the date of the application. Jurisdiction under Section 17(1) depended on reading the plaint as a whole and identifying the substance of the claim; ancillary reliefs or the form of pleading did not alter the true character of a money recovery claim. On that basis, the claim fell within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, the civil court's jurisdiction was excluded, and the transferred suit was to be decided by the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff-bank's claim, on a reading of the plaint as a whole, was a "debt" within Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 so as to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1).

Analysis: The expression "debt" in Section 2(g) was held to be of wide amplitude, covering any liability alleged as due to a bank during the course of business, whether secured or unsecured and whether payable under a decree or otherwise, if legally recoverable on the date of the application. The correct approach was to examine the substance of the plaint and determine whether the averments disclosed a claim for recovery of money due to a bank. On that analysis, the Court found that the plaintiff's claim was essentially one for recovery of a debt, notwithstanding the framing of ancillary reliefs or the High Court's characterization of the suit as one for damages and compensation.

Conclusion: The claim was within the ambit of Section 17(1) and was triable only by the Debts Recovery Tribunal; the civil court's jurisdiction was excluded.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order was set aside and the transferred suit was directed to be decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For determining jurisdiction under the Act, the plaint must be read as a whole and any liability alleged as due to a bank and legally recoverable on the date of the application falls within the statutory meaning of "debt".

---