Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The Respondent Bank calls in question the correctness of the Single Judge's decision in Washim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Girishchandra, which held that a co-operative bank's loan recovery claims in excess of ₹10 lakh fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and oust the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction under Section 91 of the MCS Act . The Petitioner in this review submits that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2020) 9 SCC 215] and the Washim Urban decision itself dictate that co- operative banks are "banks" under central law and must proceed only under the RDB Act, not under Section 91 MCS Act. The Respondent contends that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule dealt exclusively with the SARFAESI Act, and did not alter the law as to the RDB Act; that the definition of "bank" in the RDB Act differs; and that earlier law in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex Pvt. Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 236 excluded co-op banks from RDB jurisdiction. He further argues that the constitutional basis rpw184-2025 in wp2679-2023.doc (Part IX-B of the Constitution via the 97th Amendment) supporting Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule has since been struck down in Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah [(2022) 19 SCC 520], rendering Pandurang Ganpati' Chougule's reasoning weak.

3. I have heard learned counsel and have considered all submissions. The principal questions are (a) whether a co- operative bank is a "bank" under the RDB Act so as to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the DRT for debt recovery beyond ₹10 lakh, thereby ousting the Co-operative Court under Section 91 MCS Act, and (b) whether Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule and the Washim Urban judgment applying it, require reconsideration by a larger bench in view of the Respondents' contentions. Because these issues involve a significant interplay of constitutional entries and conflicting precedents, and in the absence of a directly on- point Supreme Court ruling on the RDB Act, I refrain from a final determination on the merits and leave the matter to a larger bench. However, for completeness I detail below the arguments of each side and my provisional analysis of the competing legal positions.

Factual Background:

4. The facts are not in dispute. The Washim Urban Co-op Bank a society registered under the MCS Act had advanced loans to the respondents who were member-borrowers. The sums due exceeded ₹10 lakh. The Bank filed a recovery petition before the Co-operative Court under Section 91 MCS Act. The borrowers challenged the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court on the rpw184-2025 in wp2679-2023.doc ground that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the RDB Act had exclusive jurisdiction for such claims. The Co-operative Court initially proceeded with the case. On appeal, the Co-operative Appellate Court relied on Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule and held that the Bank is a "bank" under the RDB Act, so that Sections 17- 18 of the RDB Act apply and bar the Co-operative Court's jurisdiction (as the claim exceeds the ₹10 lakh threshold). The Bank then challenged that ruling in this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226. The Single Judge in Washim Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Girishchandra agreed with the Appellate Court:

B. Bar on jurisdiction of the Co operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act.

10. The Petitioner submits that a co operative bank cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Co operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act for recovery of debts.

11. The first submission is that upon enactment of the RDB Act, Section 91 of the MCS Act ceases to operate insofar as it relates to recovery of debts by co operative banks. To that extent, the provision suffers from lack of legislative competence. Without prejudice to the above, even assuming that Section 91 continues to exist on the statute book, Section 18 of the RDB Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of all other courts and authorities in respect of matters covered by Section 17. The Co operative Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 91 is squarely covered by this bar. The rpw184-2025 in wp2679-2023.doc RDB Act is a central legislation enacted under Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule, which deals with banking. This position has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Association, (2002) 4 SCC 275 and reiterated in Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule. In contrast, the MCS Act is a State legislation enacted under Entry 32 of List II, which governs incorporation, regulation and winding up of co operative societies. In Greater Bombay, the Supreme Court had held that cooperative societies incidentally carrying on banking activity continued to fall within Entry 32 of List II. However, this view no longer holds the field. The Constitution Bench in Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule has clearly held that the banking activity of co operative banks, including recovery of dues, falls within Entry 45 of List I. Parliament is therefore competent to legislate on the recovery mechanism of co operative banks. The argument that such recovery falls exclusively within State legislative competence was expressly rejected. The Court further held that recovery of dues is an essential and integral part of banking. Matters such as incorporation, regulation and winding up alone remain within Entry 32 of List II. Recovery of debts does not.