Security deposit refund is not a recoverable debt under banking recovery law, and tribunal jurisdiction fails.

The expression "debt" under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 must be read in light of the statute's limited banking-recovery scheme, and cannot be extended to every claim by a bank. A claim for refund of a security deposit paid for licensed premises was held to fall outside Section 2(g), because it was not a liability of the kind contemplated for expeditious recovery under the Act. Once the claim was outside that definition, the Debt Recovery Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings, and the orders returning the original application and affirming that view were held to be legal, valid and proper.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of the security deposit paid for licensed premises constitutes a "debt" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. (ii) Whether the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal were legal and proper.

Issue (i): Whether refund of the security deposit paid for licensed premises constitutes a "debt" within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The expression "debt" under Section 2(g) has to be understood in the setting of the statute and its object of expeditious recovery of dues arising in the course of banking business. Although the definition is wide and covers liabilities due during business activity, the Court held that it cannot be stretched to every claim merely because a bank is involved. The claim for refund of a security deposit paid for obtaining licensed premises was treated as outside the core recovery mechanism contemplated by the Act. Expanding the definition to cover such claims would enlarge the Tribunal's jurisdiction beyond the legislative scheme.

Conclusion: The unpaid security deposit is not a "debt" within Section 2(g) of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal were legal and proper.

Analysis: Once the claim was held not to fall within the statutory definition of "debt", the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the recovery proceedings. The impugned orders returning the original application and affirming that view were consistent with the Act and its limited field of operation.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were legal, valid and proper.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the claim did not fall within the jurisdictional framework of the recovery legislation, and the Tribunal proceedings were not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for refund of money paid for taking premises on leave and license basis is not a "debt" under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 merely because a bank is the claimant; the statute is confined to recovery of dues arising within its intended banking-recovery scheme.

---