Recovery claim jurisdiction depends on filing date; later surrender of a banking licence does not defeat accrued rights.

Jurisdiction to entertain a recovery application is assessed at the date of institution, and a later surrender of a banking licence does not divest a tribunal of jurisdiction already validly assumed. Where the applicant had an accrued recovery claim when proceedings began, subsequent loss of banking status does not extinguish the substantive right to recover or justify denial of relief on equitable grounds. Subsequent events may be noticed for substantial justice, but they do not defeat an existing enforceable claim in these circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether surrender of a banking licence during pendency of recovery proceedings deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction to decide an application that was validly instituted when the applicant was a bank. (ii) Whether subsequent events can defeat a substantive right to recovery that existed on the date of institution.

Issue (i): Whether surrender of a banking licence during pendency of recovery proceedings deprives the Tribunal of jurisdiction to decide an application that was validly instituted when the applicant was a bank.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated a bank as a banking company and the Tribunal's jurisdiction attached when the recovery application was filed by an entity then having the character of a bank. The decisive factor was the existence of jurisdiction at the commencement of proceedings, not its loss due to a later change in status. Surrender of the licence did not undo the jurisdiction already validly assumed for an accrued recovery claim.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's jurisdiction was not ousted by the subsequent surrender of the banking licence.

Issue (ii): Whether subsequent events can defeat a substantive right to recovery that existed on the date of institution.

Analysis: The governing principle is that rights are ordinarily determined with reference to the date of institution, though subsequent events may be noticed in aid of substantial justice. Here, the applicant had an accrued claim when proceedings were instituted, and the later surrender of the licence did not extinguish the liability or justify denial of relief on equitable grounds.

Conclusion: The subsequent event did not defeat the existing substantive right to recovery.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the recovery proceedings failed, and the dismissal of the writ petition followed from the holding that jurisdiction and enforceable rights were to be tested as on the date of institution.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction to entertain and decide a recovery claim is determined at the commencement of proceedings, and a subsequent change in the claimant's status does not extinguish an accrued substantive right or divest the tribunal of jurisdiction already validly assumed.

---