TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 of 2001 for recovery of the said amount in the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Mumbai ('the DRT'). 2. It is the petitioner's case that after they filed their written statement in January, 2002, they came to know from the newspaper reports that respondent 1 had surrendered its banking licence in India and had stopped its banking operation in India. The petitioners therefore filed a miscellaneous application and called upon respondent 1 to produce the banking licence. Respondent 1 in its reply admitted that it had surrendered its banking licence. The petitioners, therefore, filed a miscellaneous application seeking dismissal of the original application on the ground that respondent 1 was no longer a bank as defined under the Recovery of Debts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e application was filed by respondent 1, the DRT could have entertained it because at that time, respondent 1 was a bank. But, since due to the subsequent event, respondent 1 was robbed of its character as a bank, the DRT cannot decide the application. The words 'entertain and decide' are important. The DRT must not merely have jurisdiction to entertain the application but it must have jurisdiction to decide it. Counsel submitted that therefore, the DRT and DRAT erred in rejecting the petitioners' application. 5. Mr. Chinoy, learned senior counsel for respondent 1-bank, on the other hand, submitted that the impugned orders calls for no interference. In support of his submissions, counsel relied on Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Act states that the Rent Act would not apply to certain premises. It states that the Rent Act would not apply to any premises let or sub-let to banks, or any public sector undertakings or any corporation established by or under any Central or State Act, or foreign missions, international agencies, multinational companies, and private limited companies and public limited companies having a paid up share capital of rupees one crore or more. The appellant-company had 'paid up share capital' of more than rupees one crore, not only when the notice was issued and tenancy was determined but also when the suit for possession was instituted. However, after the suit was filed, a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors to reduce its paid up ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into consideration subsequent events. In Pasupuleti Venkates Warlu's case (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with a suit for possession on the ground of personal requirement for starting business. A decree for possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff-landlord which was confirmed by the appellate court. At the stage of revision, due to subsequent event of acquisition of non-residential building by the plaintiff-landlord, an application for amendment was made by the defendant-tenant which was allowed by the High Court. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court committed an error in taking cognizance of subsequent event. The Supreme Court held that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....substantive right to claim such relief. Insofar as the facts before it were concerned, the Supreme Court held that the courts below were right in holding that the date on which tenancy was determined, the right in favour of the landlord got accrued. Such right could not have been set at naught by the tenant by unilateral act by passing a resolution to reduce "paid up share capital" of the company. 11. In our opinion, the above observations of the Supreme Court are clearly attracted to the present case. No doubt, the court can take into account subsequent events. But in Pasupuleti Venkates Warlu's case (supra) the Supreme Court has clarified that that has to be done on equitable considerations with a view to promoting substantial justice. I....