Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Whether a debt ;

14. As discussed hereinbefore, the reliefs claimed in the suit are all related to LCs covering certain transactions of money through a banking system. This has to be understood in the context it is undertaken according to the definition debt defined in Section 2(g) of the DRT Act. If it comes within a transaction undertaken by banks, financial institutions during the course of any business activity and the same is legally recoverable. Then it is a debt, which is subject matter of the DRT Act. Now it is alleged that it was not in usual course of banking business and was outside it. It is also alleged that the LCs issued are null and void. It had also gone to the extent of describing the transaction as fraudulent. It has been so spelt out in the pleadings in relation to G.A. No. 4166 of 1998, it might not have been specifically spelt out in the plaint. which, however, pleaded the hints about it while pleading in detail in the reply. According to rules of pleading, when fraud is pleaded, the detail of fraud is to be disclosed in the plaint itself in view of Order 6, Rule 4, IPC. Be that as it may, it is not necessary to go into such question. As mentioned hereinbefore, the claim that has been sought to be achieved through the prayers made in the plaint are all limited to and centres round the LCs. which are in dispute, particularly, in between the SBI and the respondent No. 53 to 57. Similarly, the claim with regard to other defendants namely defendant No. 1 to 57 are also related to the same transaction of LCs. The only exception that could have been pleaded and which has since been ascertained with all vigor is that those were fraudulent and that there is a prayer that the LCs be delivered of and be cancelled. This is also a relief with regard to the LC, which is the pivot or foundation on which the entire relief rests.

14.4. In United Bank of India v. Debts Recovery Tribunal. , it was held that the debt has to be given the widest amplitude to mean any liability which is alleged as due from any person by a bank during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank whether payable under a decree or order of any Court, whether secured or unsecured either in cash or otherwise and legally recoverable on the date of the application. In Keshoram Industries & Cotton Mills Limited v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), , it was held that the liability to pay income-tax and super tax on the income of the accounting year was held to be a debt within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act. However, this would not be of much help since Section 2(g) of DRT Act defines debt in a different manner, though, it might have a persuading value for interpreting the word debt in general terms. On the face of the pleadings, it appears that it is a debt and legally recoverable. If it is disputed by the plaintiff that has to be decided by the Tribunal, which is within its scope on the simple distinction that It is not legally recoverable. If any dispute is so raised, the provisions made in the DRT Act cannot be made redundant. In the garb of such a distinction, the Court can assume jurisdiction, when its jurisdiction is specifically and expressly barred by reason of Section 18 of the DRT Act and exclusive conferment of jurisdiction on the DRT with regard thereto.

15.4. Thus, the question is now raised in this case is a matter, which relates to the merit depending on the facts, which are to be gone into. Until this Court holds that this Court has jurisdiction, it cannot examine the same.

15.5 Fraudulent debt in Black's Laws Dictionary has been defined as "a debt created by fraud. Such a debt implies confidence and deception. It implies that it arose out of a contract, express or implied, and that fraudulent practices were implied by the debtor by which the creditor was defrauded, It had also defined debt as a sum of money due by certain and express agreement. A specific sum of money owing to one person from another, including not only obligation of debtor to pay but right of creditor to receive and enforce payment (State v. Ducey, 25 Ohio App 2d 266 NE 2d 233, 235). A fixed and certain obligation to pay money or some other valuable thing or things, cither in the present or in the future. In a still more general sense, that which is due from one person to another, whether money, goods or services. Also, sometimes an aggregate of separate debts, or the total sum of the existing claims against a person or company."

16.1 The statement and object and reasons for DRT Act clearly expresses that the matters, which were being sought to be enforced through original Courts are now to be decided and adjudicated upon by the Tribunal constituted under the said Act, it has not made any reservation. It has neither limited the jurisdiction of the Tribunal Section 17, which has created exclusive jurisdiction, in no way limits the jurisdiction or power in relation to the matters in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal constituted under DRT Act. It expressly provides the Jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide application by banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. Section 17 has to be read inconsonance with Section 2(g) defining debt, as has been held in United Bank, (supra). This decision was given at a point of time when the definition was not amended by Act 1 of 2000. Even on the basis of the un-amended definition, if widest amplitude could be conceived of, then there is no scope of narrowing the amplitude after the amendment was brought about. The decree of the amplitude which was widest, has been added to and further winded to remove the doubts, which as expressed in this case by Mr. Ghosh, that the relief with regard to delivery of LCs and cancellation thereof can also be brought within the scope of the determination/adjudication contemplated under Section 17 DRT Act, since it is also a liability claimed in respect of a debt.