Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This writ petition is filed by gamishee, namely, Singareni Collieries (herein referred to as 'gamishee') seeking appropriate directions of this Court for paying or depositing an amount of Rs.9,98,000/- lying with the petitioner in view of two conflicting orders passed by two different Courts. The petitioner states that he is ready to comply with either of the two orders and prays for a writ of Mandamus or an appropriate directions to that effect.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is Respondent No.7 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore in O.A. No.725/1997. The applicant before the said Tribunal is the State Bank of Hyderabad, claiming certain debts due from M/s Chandra Organics Pvt. Limited, (2nd respondent in this writ petition), and other respondents, who are the directors of M/s Chandra Organics Pvt. Ltd, on the ground that the Bank had advanced a loan of Rs.48,00,000/- and odd. During the pendency of those proceedings, the said Tribunal has passed an interim order in O.A.M.A. No.2 of 1997 in 8-7-1997 directing the 7th respondent-Garnishee (the present petitioner - Singareni Colleries) to deposit an amount of Rs.9,98,000/- with the applicant-Bank, deposited by the 1st defendant Company, with the gamishee, under intimation to the said Tribunal. It was served on the garnishee on 19-7-1997. The petitioner further states that mean while, Sri G. Sambaiah (Respondent No.3 in this writ petition) has filed a separate suit in O.S.No.1183 of 1997 on the file of II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and on LA. No.905 of 1997, he has obtained an injunction against the garnishee for paying the said amount to any person. Again on 14-8-1997, there is a further direction to the garnishee to deposit the said amount by 21-8-1997. It is further submitted that on 29-9-1997, the said suit was decreed ex parte and the said Sambaiah has filed E.P. No.75/1997 and on that E.P. he has obtained another order on 1-10-1997 directing the garnishee to deposit an amount of Rs.9,98,000/- in that Court to the credit of the said E.P. The petitioner-garnishee states that he has received these conflicting orders both from the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and also from the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore. He submits that if he complies with the directions of one Court, the other Court may hold him liable for contempt for not complying with the directions of that Court. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is ready to comply with any one of these directions, because the total amount held by it is only Rs.9,98,000/-. It is only in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for necessary direction in this behalf

4. Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

5. The Counsel appearing for G. Sambiah, the plaintiff in O.S.No.1183/1997 contended that, Sambiah, respondent No.3 in this writ petition has obtained an order in O.S.No. 1183/1997 against the gamishee, in the first instance, directing the gamishee not to disperse the amount to any person and later directing the gamishee to deposit the said amount to the credit of E.P.No.75/1997. He further stated that respondent No.3 -Claimant was not aware of the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore. Subsequently, there is a decree in his favour, directing the gamishee to deposit the said amount in the Executing Court and RespondentNo.3 is entitled to the same. He further stated that order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal has to necessarily yield to the order passed by the competent Civil Court. At any rate, the order of the Tribunal is illegal and without jurisdiction, since the Tribunal has no power to grant such an order in the nature of mandatory injunction to the gamishee in terms of Section 19(6) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Debt Recovery Act')- The Counsel appearing for the State Bank of Hyderabad -1st respondent in this writ petition and plaintiff - applicant before the Debt Recovery Tribunal contended that the Bank has advanced loan of Rs.48,00,000/- and odd to M/s Chandra Organics Pvt. Ltd. and on the applicable filed by the Bank before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly directed the garnishee-petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.9,98,000/ -, which the debtor has deposited with the garnishee for the purchase of coal, and the said amount is liable to be refunded to the debtor, and the said order not being challenged before any other authority, has now become final, and it has got to be complied with. But only with a mala fide intention, to defeat the order of the Tribunal, the judgment-debtor in collusion has got filed a suit by G. Sambiah, Respondent No.3, in O.S.No. 1183/1997, subsequent to the passing of this order on 1-8-1997 and has obtained an exparte order and thereafter again an ex parte decree against M/s Chandra Organics Pvt. Ltd. He further submitted that this decree is only a make belief decree, to defeat the rightful claim of the Bank, by M/s Chandra Organics Pvt. Ltd. and G. Sambiah. He further submitted that the plaintiff Sambiah in O.S.No. 1183/1997 knew very well the order passed by the Tribunal on 16-7-1997, on which date he filed a third party petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal contending that he has advanced an amount of Rs. 12,63,440/- in favour of Chandra Organics Pvt. Ltd, on the basis of a promissory note, therefore he was entitled to the amount in question from the garnishee. But when he filed the present suit in O.S.No. 1183/1997, he suppressed the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and also order passed by the said Tribunal on 8-7-1997 and obtained in I.A.No.905/1997 and also in E.P.No.75/1997 an order directing the garnishee to deposit the said amount with the Civil Court. He further submitted that the said decree is a collusive decree. The suit is filed on 1-8-1997 and there is an exparte decree on 29-9-1997, hardly within two months. From this it follows that M/s Chandra Organics Pvt. Ltd. and G. Sambiah intend to overreach the order of the Tribunal and such sharp practice is clearly an abuse of process of Court. He further submitted that order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, since the Tribunal has all the power to pass such an order under Sections 5, 17 and 19(6) of the Debt Recovery Act. He stated that in these circumstances, the Bank is entitled to custody of the said amount as per the directions of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and not G, Sambiah. Therefore, the interim direction already issued by this Court to deposit the said amount with the State Bank of Hyderabad Bidra Branch requires to be confirmed. He also relied upon some judgments in support of his contentions, which I will be considering shortly.

6. From the nature of the controversy as detailed by me above, the points that requires to be decided by me are (1) Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore has the power to pass the interim order in question under Section 19(6) of the Debt Recovery Act and (2) which of the respondents is entitled to the custody of the amount lying with the garnishee.

7. Admittedly, in this case, the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is prior in point of time as against the order passed by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. As I have already noted above, the said suit in O.S.No. 1183/1997 is filed on 1-8-1997 and in that suit, interim orders are,, obtained on 1-8-1997 in IANo.905/1997 in O.S.No.1183/1997 and another order on l4-8-1997 in IANo.980/1997. Thereafter the further order on 1-10-1997 in E.P.No.75/1997 in O.S.No. 1183/1997. These are all the orders subsequent to the filing of the suit on 1-8-1997. Whereas, the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is dated 8-7-1997 and it is thus prior in point of time than the orders passed by the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In such cases, wherever the orders are passed by two competent Civil Courts, the practice of the Courts appear to" be that, the order passed earlier in point of time shall be given priority to the order passed subsequently and the order passed by a Superior Court shall be given preference as against the order passed by the inferior Court. On the basis of these principles, it is clear that the order of the Tribunal being prior in point of time has to be given preference. As to the ranking of the Court is concerned, the Tribunal is presided over by a District Judge, who is superior in ranking to the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Section 5 of the Debt Recovery Act provides that Presiding Officer of the Tribunal shall be a person qualified to be a District Judge. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is of the cadre of District Judge. Even on this ground also, the order of the Tribunal has to be given preference as against the order of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court Moreover, Section 63(1) of Civil Procedure Code also is to the effect that in case of such conflicting orders, the matter shall be determined so as to giving priority to an order of the Court of higher grade. The ruling relied upon by the learned Counsel for G.Sambiah, respondent No.3, reported in Parachuri Veerayya v. Yalavarti Veeraraghavyya, is the one in relation to Section 63(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, where some action was done by a Court having jurisdiction in ignorance of the existence of a decree of the other Court, the action of the Executing Court may not be invalidated Section 63(2) is only an enabling provision to meet the contingency of a particular case, where irregularity is committed bow fide without knowing the existence of other decree. But in the case on hand Sri Sambiah obtained orders and decree in Civil Court suppressing the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the principles of that case do not apply to this case. Moreover, Section 63(2) of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be understood to have taken away the effect of Section 63"(1) of Code of Civil Procedure. In this view of the matter, the said judgment of this Court is distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the instant case, we are concerned with the proposition similar to Section 63(1) of Code of Civil Procedure and not to Section 63(2) of Code of Civil Procedure.

9. Moreover, even on the merits of the case, I find that Respondent No.3 G. Sambiah has (sic 'no') equity in his favour, in the sense that he has obtained order at the hands of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by suppressing the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. As I have already stated above, the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed the order directing the garnishee to deposit an amount of Rs.9,98,000/-as on 8-7-1997 only. In fact, he (G. Sambiah) filed his objection to the said order before the Tribunal on 16-7-1997 slating that he was entitled to the said amount, being the loanar to M/s Chandra Organics Pvt. Ltd. From this it follows that he knew very well the existence of the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal alleast by 16-7-1997. But fifteen days thereafter, he filed the suit on 1-8-1997 without disclosing these facts in the suit and on I. A.Nos. 905/1997 and 980/1997, he has obtained orders. To the said suit, the State Bank of Hyderabad, who is the plaintiff before the Tribunal is not made as one of the defendants and even the gamishee was not one of the defendants in the suit. But only subsequently, interim orders are obtained against the gamishee on 1-8-1997,29-8-1997 and 1-10-1997 both in the suit as well as in the E.P., as I have already noted above. It is only thereafter, the gamishee filed an objection in E.P on 20-8-1997 for the first time, stating that there is an order of the Tribunal. Thus, the Civil Court was made known the existence of order of the Tribunal, for the first time on 20-8-1997, that too by gamishee and not by Sambiah. From these facts it follows that the final order and interim orders were obtained by Sambiah from II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, suppressing the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. If the proceedings before the Tribunal were brought to the notice of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, he would not have passed the interim orders, nor the decree in favour of G. Sambiah - Respondent No.3. In these circumstances, there is an attempt on the part of G. Sambiah to overreach the order of the Tribunal so as to get an order in his favour. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has come down heavily such practice of abuse of the process of Court in its judgment reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Kamla Devi, and levied exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/-. Having regard to this law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court and also having regard to the fact that G. Sambiah -Respondent No.3 specifically suppressed the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore in the Civil Court and obtained orders at the hands of the Civil Court. I think this is also one such case where This Court has to impose some costs on him.