Exclusive DRT jurisdiction controls recovery proceedings; Company Court cannot transfer appeals or direct sale under the special statute.

The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 vests debt recovery adjudication in the Debts Recovery Tribunal and execution in the Recovery Officer, and its overriding clause prevails over inconsistent law. On that scheme, the Company Court could not transfer recovery appeals from the Tribunal to itself or issue directions permitting sale of the property. The exclusive forum structure under the special statute therefore controlled the proceedings, and inconsistent Company Court orders were liable to be set aside in favour of Tribunal determination on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Company Court had jurisdiction to transfer the recovery appeals from the Debts Recovery Tribunal to itself and to permit the Official Liquidator to proceed with sale of the property, in view of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The dispute arose out of recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerning sale of property against which third-party agreement holders had asserted claims. The governing scheme of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 vests adjudication of debt recovery in the Tribunal and execution in the Recovery Officer, and its overriding clause gives the Act precedence to the extent of inconsistency with other laws. The legal position recognised in the earlier decisions relied upon was that the Tribunal's jurisdiction in recovery matters is exclusive and that the Company Court cannot assume control over proceedings falling within that special statutory regime. The Company Court's transfer of the pending appeals and its consequential directions relating to sale therefore conflicted with that exclusive forum structure.

Conclusion: The Company Court had no jurisdiction to transfer the appeals from the Debts Recovery Tribunal or to direct further sale proceedings in the manner ordered.

Final Conclusion: The recovery disputes were held to lie within the exclusive domain of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the impugned Company Court orders were set aside with the matters sent back to the Tribunal for consideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute confers exclusive adjudicatory and jurisdiction on the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Recovery Officer and contains an overriding clause, the Company Court cannot assume jurisdiction over the same recovery proceedings or issue inconsistent directions under the Companies Act, 1956.

---