2000 (11) TMI 1141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and W.A.M.P. No. 3941 of 1998. The Bench set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and directed parties to approach the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('the Act'). 3. The brief facts in the appeals are that the appellant company entered into contracts with National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC). It appears that the NTPC terminated the contracts and encashed the bank guarantee for Rs. 234 lakhs on 4-12-1987. The action of the NTPC was questioned, and a learned single Judge of the High Court had earlier held that action of the NTPC was illegal and directed to refund the amount collected under the bank guarantee. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the suit was o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h Court on the ground that the abovesaid suit was instituted on 27-8-1993, and the impugned order of the civil court which was passed on 20-9-1994, subsequent to the passing of the Act, i.e., 24-6-1993; therefore the civil court had no jurisdiction. The Tribunal was established on 30-11-1994. The order passed by the civil court was quashed. In the appeal preferred before the Division Bench by the two banks (respondents 1 and 2), the Bench agreed with the trial court that the order passed by the civil court was without jurisdiction. But at the same time, the Division Bench felt that inasmuch as no decree had been passed, it was not the stage at which the writ petition could be entertained. Hence the appeal was allowed and the writ petition w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....means the day on which the Tribunal is established and not the day on which the Act came into force. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Tribunal was established on 30-11-1994 subsequent to the passing of the order of the civil court. It is true that the civil court passed an order on 20-9-1994 after the Act had come into force. But for the purpose of section 18 what is relevant is not the date of passing of the Act, but the date of the establishment of the Tribunal. Therefore, 24-6-1993 is not relevant, but it is the date of establishment of Tribunal, namely, 30-11-1994, that is relevant. The impugned order in the present case was passed by the civil court on 20-9-1994 prior to the establishment of the Tribunal on 30-11-1994....