Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging DRT Order in Debt Recovery Case — Foreign Bank's Surrender of Licence Does Not Affect Pending Recovery Proceedings. The court held that the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is determined at the time of filing the application and subsequent cessation of banking business does not oust its jurisdiction under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 61
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Isibars Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, had availed credit facilities from Commerzbank AG, a German banking corporation with a branch in Mumbai. The petitioner defaulted on repayment, leading Commerzbank to file Original Application No. 153 of 2001 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal II, Mumbai (DRT) for recovery of the outstanding amount. After filing its written statement in January 2002, the petitioner learned from newspaper reports that Commerzbank had surrendered its banking licence in India and ceased its banking operations. The petitioner then filed an application before the DRT seeking dismissal of the recovery application on the ground that the bank, having surrendered its licence, could not maintain the proceedings. The DRT dismissed this application, and the petitioner appealed to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which also dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner argued that once a bank surrenders its licence, it ceases to be a 'bank' under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act) and cannot sue before the DRT. The respondent bank contended that its status as a 'bank' is determined at the time of filing the application and that surrender of licence does not dissolve the company. The High Court examined the definition of 'bank' under Section 2(d) of the RDB Act, which includes a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The court noted that Commerzbank was a banking company at the time of filing the application and that the surrender of its licence did not result in its dissolution or winding up. The court held that the DRT's jurisdiction is determined at the time of institution of the proceedings and subsequent events do not divest it of jurisdiction. The court also observed that the bank continues to exist as a legal entity and can sue and be sued. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the DRT and DRAT.

Headnote

A) Debt Recovery - Jurisdiction of DRT - Surrender of Banking Licence - The issue was whether a foreign bank which had surrendered its banking licence and stopped operations in India could continue to prosecute a recovery application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court held that the DRT's jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing the application and subsequent cessation of banking business does not oust its jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10)

B) Banking Law - Foreign Bank - Winding Up - The petitioner argued that the respondent bank, having surrendered its licence, must be treated as wound up and cannot sue. The Court rejected this, noting that surrender of licence does not amount to dissolution or winding up of the company; the bank continues to exist as a legal entity. (Paras 5-8)

C) Interpretation of Statutes - Section 2(d) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - The definition of 'bank' includes a banking company as defined in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. A foreign bank which had a branch in India and was carrying on banking business at the time of filing the application falls within this definition. Subsequent cessation of business does not affect its status as a 'bank' for the purpose of the Act. (Paras 6-9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the surrender of banking licence by a foreign bank and cessation of its banking operations in India affects the maintainability of a recovery application filed by it before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the DRT and DRAT. The court held that the respondent bank was a 'bank' under the RDB Act at the time of filing the application and the surrender of its licence did not affect the maintainability of the proceedings.

Law Points

  • Debt Recovery Tribunal jurisdiction
  • foreign bank winding up
  • surrender of banking licence
  • Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act
  • 1993
  • Companies Act
  • 1956
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011:BHC-OS:5272-DB

Writ Petition No.1642 of 2003

2011-03-23

Mrs. Ranjana Desai, R.G. Ketkar

2011:BHC-OS:5272-DB

Mr. Suneep Sen with Mr. Kunal Damle i/b Udwadia Udeshi for the petitioners; Mr. Aspi Chinoi, senior counsel with Mr. Bhavik Manek i/b Wadia Gandhy & Co. for the respondents.

Isibars Limited

Commerzbank AG & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging orders of Debt Recovery Tribunal and Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissing petitioner's application to dismiss recovery proceedings on ground that respondent bank had surrendered its banking licence.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of DRT and DRAT orders and dismissal of the recovery application filed by the respondent bank.

Filing Reason

Petitioner contended that after surrendering its banking licence, the respondent bank ceased to be a 'bank' under the RDB Act and could not maintain recovery proceedings before the DRT.

Previous Decisions

DRT dismissed petitioner's application; DRAT dismissed appeal.

Issues

Whether the surrender of banking licence by a foreign bank and cessation of its banking operations in India affects the maintainability of a recovery application filed by it before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the respondent bank, having surrendered its licence, is no longer a 'bank' under the RDB Act and cannot sue before the DRT; the bank must be treated as wound up. Respondent argued that its status as a bank is determined at the time of filing the application; surrender of licence does not dissolve the company; the DRT retains jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is determined at the time of filing the application. Subsequent cessation of banking business or surrender of licence by a foreign bank does not oust the DRT's jurisdiction. The bank continues to exist as a legal entity and can sue and be sued.

Judgment Excerpts

The DRT's jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing the application and subsequent cessation of banking business does not oust its jurisdiction. Surrender of licence does not amount to dissolution or winding up of the company; the bank continues to exist as a legal entity.

Procedural History

Respondent bank filed Original Application No. 153 of 2001 before DRT II, Mumbai for recovery of dues. Petitioner filed written statement in January 2002. Petitioner then filed application before DRT to dismiss the OA on ground that bank had surrendered its licence. DRT dismissed the application. Petitioner appealed to DRAT, which dismissed the appeal. Petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: Section 2(d)
  • Banking Regulation Act, 1949:
  • Companies Act, 1956:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging DRT Order in Debt Recovery Case — Foreign Bank's Surrender of Licence Does Not Affect Pending Recovery Proceedings. The court held that the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is determined at...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Plaintiff's Inspection of Court Records Against Company in Liquidation. Official Liquidator Directed to Provide Access to Suit Papers for Recovery of Salary and Benefits Under Order XI Rule 14 CPC and Section 434 Companies Ac...