w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Bank of India v/s Union of India

Company & Directors' Information:- BANK OF INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1906PLC000243

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY LTD. [Active] CIN = U36900WB1927PLC005621

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- N BANK LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U65191WB1924PLC000442

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999KA1942PTC000292

    CWJC 15287 of 2006

    Decided On, 21 January 2008

    At, High Court of Bihar


    For the Appearing Parties: ---------

Judgment Text

(1.) THE writ petitioner is Bank of india and has moved this Court against the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), bihar at Patna dated 7-9-2006 in OA No. 50 of 2003. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner Bank had filed a requisition before the DRT. While the requisition was pending, the Bank entered into a settlement with the debtor and that agreement having been accepted by the debtor, he took steps and liquidated the entire dues. It is not in dispute that Bank acted as per its policy and the settlement was arrived in due course of its business following its regulations. The dues of the Bank having been settled, the bank then moved the DRT for withdrawal from the proceedings. DRT allowed the same by the impugned order but while doing so it examined the agreement as between the bank and its debtor and formed an opinion that the bank had arted unjustly in the matter and commented thereon and sent the matter for enquiry. The objection of the petitioner-Bank is that it is not the duty of the drt to go into the aspect of the settlement as between the parties. DRT is a forum only for the purposes of recovery when moved. It has no jurisdiction to enquire into the adequacy or validity of an agreement as between the parties. Its jurisdiction is limited to recovery. If parties are not intending to get a recovery through DRT, it has no jurisdiction to intervene. In my view, the submissions are correct. Once the Bank petitioned DRT for withdrawing the case on the dues being satisfied, DRT lost its jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It has no business, in view of this Court, to go into and enquire whether the agreement, as entered into between the Bank and its constituent, was in accordance with law or not. That is beyond the jurisdiction of DRT. I hold accordingly and set aside that part of the impugned or

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

der. That order will not be acted upon by any party whatsoever. (2.) THE writ petition is, thus, allowed with the aforesaid directions. (3.) LET this order be communicated to the drt.