163 of 1996.
The Act came into force on 24th of June, 1993.
By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the order of the tribunal on a finding that under the Act, the tribunal gets jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions but the plaintiffs claim in question cannot be held to be a debt as defined in Section 2 g of the Act inasmuch as the claim is of an undetermined sum, which is required to be ascertained upon an inquiry to be companyducted by the tribunal.
While the suit was pending, the Parliament enacted the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as the Act to provide for the establishment of tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
276 of 1991, claiming different reliefs against the three defendants.
The tribunal disposed of the applications filed by the defendants holding that the tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the claim of the plaintiff.
The three defendants, thereafter filed three separate applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders passed by the tribunal.
By operation of Section 31 of the Act, the suit in question stood transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, established under the Act and was renumbered as Transferred Application No.
PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.
The appellant, United Bank of India filed a suit in the High Court of Calcutta which was registered as Suit No.
The respondents moved an application before the tribunal, companytending thereunder that the tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain suit in question in view of the nature of the reliefs prayed for and as such, plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for being filed in the High Court itself.
