B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. We see no reason why the High Courts in such matters filed by the defendants in suits instituted by the banks before the Debut Recovery Tribunal should more or less as a matter of course grant stay of proceedings before the Tribunals. The very purpose of setting up the Tribunals will be lost by granting stay merely because there is challenge to the notification constituting the Tribunal. In the present case, the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that as the proceedings were initiated in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction.
2. The special leave petition is dismissed.
3. Petition dismissed.
Sita Ram Singhania v. Bank Of Tokyo-mitsubishi Ltd.&ors
Sita Ram Singhania v. Bank Of Tokyo-mitsubishi Ltd.&ors
(Supreme Court Of India)
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6759 Of 1999 | 11-05-1999
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJENDRA BABU
Eq Citations
- (1999) 3 COMPLJ 170 (SC)
- [1999] 3 SCR 512
- (1999) 4 SCC 382
- AIR 1999 SC 2180
- 1999 (2) CTC 539
- 1999 (3) CLJ 170
- 1999 (3) SCALE 564
- LQ/SC/1999/542
Head Note
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Act, 1993 — Ss. 17, 18 and 20 — Stay of proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal — Stay of proceedings before Debts Recovery Tribunal, as a matter of course, merely because of challenge to notification constituting Debts Recovery Tribunal, held, will defeat the very purpose of setting up Debts Recovery Tribunals
