Limited tribunal jurisdiction excludes independent set-off and counter-claim, while bank recovery suits remain transferable to the Tribunal.

A Debt Recovery Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over bank and financial institution recovery claims, so a civil suit within that jurisdiction must be transferred even if a counter-claim, cross-claim or cross-suit has been filed in civil court. However, those independent claims do not travel with the transferred suit because the Tribunal's special, limited jurisdiction does not extend to trying cross-suits, cross-claims or set-off as separate causes of action. The Tribunal may consider defensive matters such as denial, payment or adjustment when determining the bank's claim, but it cannot entertain or decide an independent set-off or counter-claim. The bank's recovery action proceeds before the Tribunal, while the defendant's separate claim must be pursued elsewhere if maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a civil suit falling within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal can be refused transfer merely because a counter-claim, cross-claim or cross-suit has been filed in the civil court. (ii) Whether a cross-suit, cross-claim or plea of set-off can be transferred to the Tribunal along with the suit. (iii) Whether the Tribunal can entertain and decide a plea of set-off or counter-claim.

Issue (i): Whether a civil suit falling within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal can be refused transfer merely because a counter-claim, cross-claim or cross-suit has been filed in the civil court.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to applications by banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts. Pending suits within that jurisdiction are required to be transferred under the special statute. The existence of a counter-claim or cross-suit in the civil court does not enlarge the civil court's power to retain the bank's suit, because the statutory scheme gives exclusive jurisdiction over the bank's recovery claim to the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The suit was rightly transferable to the Tribunal notwithstanding the counter-claim or cross-suit.

Issue (ii): Whether a cross-suit, cross-claim or plea of set-off can be transferred to the Tribunal along with the suit.

Analysis: A cross-suit or cross-claim is a claim by a person other than a bank or financial institution and is not within the Tribunal's limited jurisdiction. A plea of set-off is not separately entertainable unless the forum itself is authorised by law to try it. Since the Tribunal is not a civil court and the statute does not confer jurisdiction to try such claims, they cannot accompany the transferred suit.

Conclusion: The cross-suit, cross-claim and plea of set-off could not be transferred to the Tribunal.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal can entertain and decide a plea of set-off or counter-claim.

Analysis: The Tribunal is a creature of statute with summary powers and no common law jurisdiction. It can consider defensive pleas such as denial, payment or adjustment, because they go to the quantification or extinction of the bank's claim. But a set-off or counter-claim is an independent claim and requires jurisdiction equivalent to that of a civil court trying a separate suit, which the Tribunal lacks. Allowing such claims would defeat the object of the special enactment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal cannot entertain or decide a set-off or counter-claim.

Final Conclusion: The bank's recovery suits had to proceed before the Tribunal, while the defendants' independent claims remained outside the Tribunal's competence and had to be pursued, if at all, in the civil court.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tribunal with limited, special jurisdiction can entertain only those claims the statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises it to decide, and an independent counter-claim or set-off cannot be imported into that jurisdiction merely because it is pleaded in the written statement.

---