Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. By referring to these provisions, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that it will be clear from these provisions that there is a difference between a Bank carrying on banking business and a branch of the said Bank. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Rule 6 of the Rules of 1993 provides that the application can be filed at a DRT within whose jurisdiction the applicant is functioning as a Bank. He further contended that in view of the various provisions referred to above, it will be clear that the place where the Central Office of the Bank is situated, will be the place from where the Bank functions as a Banking Company, as distinguished from its branch and, therefore, the DRT within whose local jurisdiction the Bank functions as a Banking Company will have jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. He also pointed out Annexure-2, the copy of the application for loan made by the defendants to the Bank of Rajasthan, which has its Registered Office at Udaipur. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, though the loan application was forwarded from Chennai, the appellant Bank received it, processed it and the loan was sanctioned by the Board of Directors of the Bank which, in their case, is the Managing Director. He also pointed out that Annexure-3 will show that the loan was sanctioned by the Committee Executives i.e. by the Managing Director, at Jaipur. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that since the loan was sanctioned within the jurisdiction of the DRT at Jaipur, and if the provisions of Section 19(l)(c) of the Act of 1993 and Rule 6 of the Rules of 1993 are read harmoniously, then it will be clear that not only that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of DRT, Jaipur but also that the application can be filed where the appellant-Bank functions as a Banking Company and not merely as a branch. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the sanction of the loan is one thing and the operation of the sanction is yet another thing. He contended that sanction is given only at Jaipur whereas the documents of security are executed at Chennai. He contended that simply because documents of security were executed at Chennai, it cannot be said that only the DRT at Chennai will have jurisdiction. According to him the DRT at Jaipur will have jurisdiction inasmuch as part of the cause of action, namely, sanction of the loan, was made within the jurisdiction of the DRT at Jaipur.

14. I agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant. In view of the provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the Act of 1993, it is clear that the application for recovery of a loan can be filed by a Bank before the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the cause of action had arisen either wholly or in part. It may be that the defendants applied for the loan from Chennai. But the loan was sanctioned at Jaipur. Therefore, it is evident that the defendants' offer or request was accepted at Jaipur and, therefore, part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of DRT, Jaipur. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, Rule 6 also provides that the application for recovery can be filed before a Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the applicant is functioning as a Bank. In view the provisions contained in Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act of 1993, and Sections 5(c) and 5(d) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it is clear that the term 'Bank' referred to in Rule 6 is only the 'Banking Company' and not its branch. The terms 'branch' and 'branch offices' have also been separately defined in Section 5(cc) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Therefore, if we bear in mind the difference between a Banking Company and a Branch in relation to a Banking Company, then it will be clear that the contention put forward by the appellant that DRT, Jaipur has also jurisdiction to entertain the matter. As per Rule 6 of the Rules of 1993, the application for recovery can be filed at the DRT within whose jurisdiction the Bank functions as a Bank i.e. as a Banking Company. A branch cannot be stated to function as a Banking Company. It is only the Central Office of the Bank which sanctions the loan and also has control over its branches can be termed as the Banking Company. The various provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, clearly maintain the difference between the Banking Company and its branches. Therefore, when Section 6 of the Act of 1993 refers to a 'Bank', it can only mean the Banking Company and not its branches. Therefore, it can be stated that the applicant Bank which functions as a Banking Company from its Central Office at Jaipur, can file the O.A. for the Recovery of the Debt before the DRT, Jaipur.

15. Further, the learned Counsel for the appellant also contended that the common law rule that debtor is to seek the creditor has been recognised by the provision contained in Rule 6 of the Rules of 1993 and, therefore, also the DRT at Jaipur will have jurisdiction. He contended that the loan amount is repayable to the 'Banking Company' which is situated at Jaipur and not merely at its branch at Chennai. The Central Office of the appellant Bank situated within the jurisdiction of the DRT, Jaipur, is the place from where the appellant Bank functions as a Banking Company. Therefore also, it has to be held that the DRT, Jaipur has jurisdiction to entertain the O.A.

17. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, I am of the view that the view taken by the learned Presiding Officer of DRT, Jaipur, that except sanction, no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of DRT, Jaipur and, therefore, DRT, Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A., cannot be sustained. Even that part of the cause of action, namely, the sanction of loan by accepting the request of the borrowers, will give the right to the appellant Bank to file the O.A. before DRT, Jaipur. There is no dispute that the loan was sanctioned at Jaipur. Therefore, the DRT, Jaipur, will have jurisdiction to entertain the O.A. Even otherwise, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 6 of the Rules 1993 also, the appellant Bank would be entitled to file the O.A. for recovery before the DRT within whose jurisdiction it functions as a 'Banking Company'.