Debenture trustee recovery claims remain outside exclusive DRT jurisdiction when the bank seeks payment for debenture holders, not its own debt.

Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 applies only where a bank or financial institution seeks recovery of a debt due to itself; a debenture trustee suing for amounts payable to debenture holders does not fall within that exclusive DRT jurisdiction. The trustee's statutory duties to protect debenture holders and enforce security do not convert the claim into a debt owed to the bank. The later decision in Alpha and Omega was distinguished because it concerned a statutory assignee pursuing its own debt, whereas trustee-based claims remain outside section 17. Krishna Filaments therefore continues to apply to such suits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a bank or financial institution suing as a debenture trustee for recovery of sums payable to debenture holders can institute proceedings on the Original Side of the High Court and whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction; (ii) whether the earlier view in Krishna Filaments remains good law in light of the later decision in Alpha and Omega and the statutory scheme.

Issue (i): whether a bank or financial institution suing as a debenture trustee for recovery of sums payable to debenture holders can institute proceedings on the Original Side of the High Court and whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is confined to applications by banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. Although the definition of debt is wide, it does not extend section 17 to claims where the bank sues only as trustee for debenture holders and seeks recovery of amounts not due to itself. The debenture trustee's duties under the SEBI Debenture Trustees Regulations require it to protect debenture holders and enforce security, but those duties do not convert the claim into a debt due to the bank. In such a case, the bar of civil court jurisdiction is not attracted.

Conclusion: The suit can be maintained on the Original Side of the High Court and the Debts Recovery Tribunal does not have exclusive jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the earlier view in Krishna Filaments remains good law in light of the later decision in Alpha and Omega and the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The later decision in Alpha and Omega concerned a securitisation or reconstruction company that, by virtue of statutory assignment and the amended definition of financial institution, stepped into the shoes of the original lender and pursued recovery of a debt due to itself. That situation is materially different from a debenture trustee acting only for debenture holders. The inclusion of debenture trustees in the definition of secured creditor under the Securitisation Act does not alter section 17 of the RDB Act so as to confer DRT jurisdiction where the bank is not recovering its own dues. Krishna Filaments therefore continues to apply to the extent it holds that such trustee-based claims are outside section 17.

Conclusion: Krishna Filaments remains good law for debenture trustee suits brought on behalf of debenture holders, and Alpha and Omega does not overrule it on that point.

Final Conclusion: The questions were answered by holding that a debenture trustee's claim for the benefit of debenture holders is not a claim for recovery of debt due to the bank itself, so the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not excluded and the contrary reading of the later decision was disapproved to that extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 applies only where the bank or financial institution seeks recovery of a debt due to itself, and a trustee claim for third-party beneficiaries does not attract the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction.

---