SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Large Bench)

Before:- G.B. Pattanaik, M.B. Shah, Doraiswamy Raju, S.N. Variava and D.M. Dharamadhikari, JJ.

SLP No. 7146 of 2000. D/d. 21.8.2002.

State Bank of India - Petitioner

Versus

Sarathi Textiles - Respondent

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Sections 19, 20 and 22 - Applicability of Order 34 Civil Procedure Code - Held that, a special procedure having been provided in the special enactment for recovery of debts due to the banks and financial institutions and special procedure having been provided therein, the question of considering the provisions of Order 34 Rules 2, 3, 4 and 11 Civil Procedure Code in the case in hand, does not arise - Act clearly stipulates that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code will have no application except certain provisions thereof as mentioned in Section 22.

[Paras 5 and 6]

Cases Referred :-

Soli Pestonji Majoo v. Gangadhar Khomkal, (1969) 1 SCC 220 : (1969) 3 SCR 33.

ORDER

1. Pursuant to the earlier order dated 5-8-2002 the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on instructions, states that the respondent is willing to pay interest @ 12% per annum in settlement of the dispute in issue. While, therefore, keeping the points of law open, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent would pay simple interest @ 12% per annum, within eight weeks from today. On the payment in question, the title deed will be returned. The special leave petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Special Leave Petition No. 9298 of 2000

2. The order of reference does not indicate as to why this petition has been referred to the Constitution Bench.

3. The learned Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner Bank advanced before us serious arguments on the interpretation of Order 34 Rules 2, 3, 4 and 11 and argued as to the discretion of the Court in the matter of grant of interest and how the same should be interpreted notwithstanding the fact that there are several earlier decisions of this Court including the decision in Soli Pestonji Majoo v. Gangadhar Khomkal, (1969) 1 SCC 220 : (1969) 3 SCR 33.

4. The present proceeding arises out of an application filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The Tribunal did grant interest @ 19½%, but on appeal being carried, the same has been reduced to 10% by the Appellate Tribunal. The Act clearly stipulates that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code will have no application except certain provisions thereof as mentioned in Section 22. Section 19 deals with the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal on an application being filed by the banks and financial institutions and sub-section (20) deals with the power of the Tribunal in the matter of grant of interest. A special procedure having been provided in the special enactment for recovery of debts due to the banks and financial institutions and special procedure having been provided therein, the question of considering the provisions of Order 34 Rules 2, 3, 4 and 11 Civil Procedure Code in the case in hand, does not arise. Prima facie, sub-section (20) of Section 19 confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest on an application being filed as it thinks fit to meet the ends of justice. That being so, in the case in hand, we see no justification for interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the appellate order of the Tribunal. This petition accordingly stands dismissed.

Slip dismissed