Borrower's independent civil suit remains maintainable; it cannot be transferred to the tribunal absent statutory power.

A borrower's independent civil suit against a bank is maintainable because the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 does not expressly or by necessary implication oust civil court jurisdiction over such a suit. The Act's set-off and counterclaim provisions operate only within a pending recovery application and do not bar separate civil proceedings. An independent suit also cannot be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, because the statute provides no such transfer power and Section 151 CPC cannot create one. Consent of the borrower is irrelevant where the court lacks statutory authority to order transfer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a suit filed by a borrower against a bank or financial institution is ousted by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; (ii) Whether an independent suit filed by a borrower can be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and tried along with the bank's recovery application; (iii) Whether such transfer can be ordered only with the consent of the plaintiff borrower.

Issue (i): Whether the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a suit filed by a borrower against a bank or financial institution is ousted by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confers on the Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications by banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts. The bar of jurisdiction operates in relation to those matters, but the Act does not expressly or by necessary implication bar a suit by a borrower against a bank. The provisions permitting set-off and counterclaim are enabling provisions within a pending recovery application and do not create a bar against an independent civil action. The Civil Court's jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure remains intact unless excluded, and no such exclusion was found here.

Conclusion: The Civil Court's jurisdiction to try a borrower's suit is not ousted.

Issue (ii): Whether an independent suit filed by a borrower can be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal and tried along with the bank's recovery application.

Analysis: The Act contains no provision authorising transfer of a borrower's independent suit to the Tribunal. Section 31 provides transfer only of pending suits or proceedings of the kind that would fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and it does not cover a borrower's separate suit filed after the Tribunal's establishment. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used to create a transfer power where the statute does not provide one. The borrower therefore has a choice either to pursue a counterclaim in the Tribunal or to continue an independent civil suit, but the suit cannot be compelled into the Tribunal.

Conclusion: An independent borrower's suit cannot be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Issue (iii): Whether such transfer can be ordered only with the consent of the plaintiff borrower.

Analysis: Since the Civil Court lacks power to transfer the independent suit to the Tribunal at all, the presence or absence of consent is immaterial. Consent cannot supply a jurisdictional or statutory power that the Civil Court does not possess.

Conclusion: No transfer can be ordered, whether with consent or without consent.

Final Conclusion: The statutory framework preserves the borrower's right to pursue an independent civil suit notwithstanding the bank's recovery proceedings, while the recovery application before the Tribunal proceeds on its own course. Earlier contrary views permitting transfer of such suits to the Tribunal were disapproved.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express or implied statutory bar, a borrower's independent civil suit against a bank is maintainable and cannot be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal merely because the bank has initiated recovery proceedings; set-off and counterclaim remain confined to the Tribunal proceedings themselves.

---