Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Micros Sugar Engineering Solutions ... vs Punjab National Bank on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Aniruddha Bose, Vikram Nath
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1467 OF 2021
M/S MICROS SUGAR ENGINEERING
SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ORS. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent.
The petitioners want an original application registered as O.A. No. 263 of 2020 titled “Punjab National Bank vs. M/s Micros Sugar Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.” (subject-case) pending before the DRT-II, Delhi, transferred to the DRT, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
The grounds on which the transfer is sought for is that another case between the same parties is pending before the DRT, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and the aforesaid case also involves same set of transactions. It is specifically argued Signature Not Verified on behalf of the petitioners that the Bank is a respondent Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2022.10.01 13:45:44 IST Reason: in the case in Lucknow, and in that proceeding the Bank has not questioned the territorial jurisdiction of the said DRT 2 for adjudication of that proceeding.
Learned Counsel for the Bank has opposed this plea for transfer. Her submission is that the appellate Tribunal in Delhi ought to have been approached for seeking transfer of the subject-case. In support of her submissions on this count she has relied on a judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered on 26th September 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 4413/2014 (Paramount Plastic Industries vs. Corporation Bank & Ors.). In paragraph ‘11’ of the said judgment, it has been held and observed:
“11. As far as the question of transfer from DRT having territorial jurisdiction to a DRT having no territorial jurisdiction is concerned, Section 17A of the DRT Act, while conferring power on the Chairperson of the DRAT for such transfer, does not impose any condition of the transfer being permissible only to such DRT which would also have territorial jurisdiction or transfer being not permissible to a DRT which does not have territorial jurisdiction. We have thus wondered whether there is any such restriction under the general law of transfer of proceedings from one Court to another. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) confers power on the High Court as well as District Judge, of transfer of suits, appeals or other proceedings from one Court to another. The same also does not contain any such restriction though Sub-Section (5) thereof clarifies that such power of transfer can also be exercised with respect to a suit or 3 proceeding instituted and pending in a Court which has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. We find the High Courts of Allahabad (in Kishore Lal Vs. Balkishan AIR 1932 All 660), Madras (in P. Madhavan Unni Vs. M. Jayapandia Nadar AIR 1973 Mad 2), Rajasthan (in Maliram Nemichand Jain Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation AIR 1974 Raj
204), Orissa (in Mulraj Doshi Vs. Gangadhar Singhania AIR 1982 Ori 191 and in Anima Das Vs. State of Orissa MANU/OR/0046/2003), Kerala (in Thomas Vs. Sunnichan MANU/KE/0688/2003), Punjab & Haryana (in Deepika Vs. Vinod Bhalla MANU/PH/0429/2004) and Karnataka (in M.V. Rekha Vs. Sri Sathya MANU/KA/1315/2010), all to have held that in exercise of powers of transfer, proceedings can be transferred to a Court which does not even enjoy territorial jurisdiction. It was reasoned that else the very purpose and object of conferring the power to transfer will be nullified and it was held that the words in Section 24 of the CPC “competent to try” (and which we may notice, are missing in Section 17A of the DRT Act) do not refer to territorial jurisdiction. We respectfully concur with the said view. Reference in this regard may also be made to Usha Vs. Palisetty Mohan Rao (2002) 10 SCC 544 where the opposition to transfer on the ground of the Court to which transfer was being sought having no jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 was negatived by holding that the powers of transfer are altogether different from the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and that if such an opposition were to be accepted then no transfer of any case can be made in as much as the matter would have been filed in a 4 Court having jurisdiction to deal with it and that such an interpretation would stultify the process of law and render nugatory the provisions relating to transfer.
We therefore hold that merely because the Full Bench in Amish Jain (supra) has held that the DRT within whose territorial jurisdiction the secured asset with respect to which action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act has been initiated would have exclusive territorial jurisdiction to entertain appeal/application under Section 17 of that Act, cannot come in the way of transfer if otherwise permissible of the said appeal/application to another DRT”. Learned Counsel for the Bank has submitted that Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not contemplate transfer of DRT proceedings from one jurisdiction to other as the said provision applies only to suit, appeal or other proceedings.
In this case, in our opinion, we are satisfied that it would be expedient for the ends of justice if both the matters are heard by the Tribunal at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. That would do complete justice between the parties so far as the plea for transfer is concerned. We accordingly invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and direct transfer of the subject-case to the DRT, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
5The present transfer petition is allowed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................J. [ANIRUDDHA BOSE] ...................J. [VIKRAM NATH] New Delhi;
September 19, 2022.
6
ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.15 SECTION XVI-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
TRANSFER PETITION(S)(CIVIL) NO(S). 1467/2021
M/S MICROS SUGAR ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. & ORS. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK RESPONDENT(S) (IA No. 106324/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 106323/2021 - STAY APPLICATION) Date : 19-09-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Upadhayay, Adv.
Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv.
Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Adv.
Mr. Basant Palsingh, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Transfer Petition is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(POOJA SHARMA) (VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file.)