State Bank of India Vs. M/s Prachi Construction, Cuttack & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 485-86 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13151-13152 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13151-13152 of 1999)
Petitioner: State Bank of India
Respondent: M/s Prachi Construction, Cuttack & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 485-86 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13151-13152 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 13151-13152 of 1999)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL & S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 21, 2000
Head Note:
DEBTS RECOVERY LAWS
Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993
Recovery of debts due to bank – Civil court decreeing suit – Execution application transferred to Recovery Tribunal – Respond-ent challenging provisions of Act – High Court granting stay of recovery – Validity. Held notwithstanding challenge to the provi-sions of the Debt Recovery Act High Court not justified is grant-ing stay Practice of High Courts in granting stay as a matter of course not correct. Stay vacated and Tribunal directed to proceed with the execution application. Principles laid down in Sita Ram Singhania v. Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd (1999) 4 SCC 382 reiterated.
(Para 3)
Cases Reffered:
1. Sita Ram Singhania v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. and Others (1999 (4) SCC 382).
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. In the instant cases a civil court had decreed the suit in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,55,505/-. When the execution application was filed, the same was transferred to the Dept. Recovery Tribunal who was then seized of the jurisdiction. The respondent challenged the provisions of the said Act and stay was granted by the High Court who, despite an application being filed in this behalf chose not to vacate the stay.
3. This Court in Sita Ram Singhania v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. and Others (1999 (4) SCC 382) has observed that in suits which are instituted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal stays were being granted as a matter of course, this should not be done. The position with regard to execution of the decree by the Tribunal, when there is no challenge to the decree, would be the same. We see no reason as to why the court should have stayed the execu-tion of the decree, challenge of the Act notwithstanding. The appeal accordingly allowed, the order of stay granted by High Court is set aside. The Tribunal will be at liberty to proceed with the execution application and dispose of the same in accor-dance with law.
1. Special leave granted.
2. In the instant cases a civil court had decreed the suit in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,55,505/-. When the execution application was filed, the same was transferred to the Dept. Recovery Tribunal who was then seized of the jurisdiction. The respondent challenged the provisions of the said Act and stay was granted by the High Court who, despite an application being filed in this behalf chose not to vacate the stay.
3. This Court in Sita Ram Singhania v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. and Others (1999 (4) SCC 382) has observed that in suits which are instituted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal stays were being granted as a matter of course, this should not be done. The position with regard to execution of the decree by the Tribunal, when there is no challenge to the decree, would be the same. We see no reason as to why the court should have stayed the execu-tion of the decree, challenge of the Act notwithstanding. The appeal accordingly allowed, the order of stay granted by High Court is set aside. The Tribunal will be at liberty to proceed with the execution application and dispose of the same in accor-dance with law.
