- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Hira Lall And Sons And Others v. Lakshmi Commercial Bank .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petition sought transfer of Original Application No. 846 of 1996 from the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to the High Court of Delhi. The underlying dispute stems from a letter of credit opened in favour of M/s Palmex Enterprises, Singapore, for shipment of PVC. After the negotiating bank paid the seller and the issuing bank presented the documents, the petitioners refused payment, asserting that the vessel had sunk. The respondent bank nevertheless retired the documents and lodged an insurance claim. When payment was still refused, the bank filed a suit on 9-7-1980, obtained a decree when leave to defend was refused, and the matter later stood transferred to the DRT upon the coming into force of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Claiming similarity with several High Court suits involving insurance claims arising out of ship sinkings, the petitioners asked that the case be re-transferred to the High Court; the bank opposed the request.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its power to transfer the matter from the Debts Recovery Tribunal to the High Court of Delhi.
- Whether Article 139-A of the Constitution or Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to such a transfer request.
- Whether, notwithstanding statutory provisions, the Court’s inherent jurisdiction justifies transfer in the interests of justice.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- Several suits involving similar facts (sinking ships, disputed letters of credit, and insurance claims) are pending before the High Court; consolidating them would avoid conflicting findings on common issues.
- The case therefore ought to be heard alongside those High Court matters.
Respondent Bank's Arguments
- Opposed transfer, relying on the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the DRT by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Assn., (2002) 4 SCC 275; (2002) 2 SCR 450 | Upheld the constitutional validity of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the DRT over bank debt recovery matters. | The Court relied on this authority to reinforce that, under Sections 17, 18 and 31 of the Act, civil courts’ jurisdiction is ousted and pending suits must remain before the DRT. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first observed that Article 139-A of the Constitution governs inter-High-Court transfers and thus does not apply. It also expressed doubt that Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies because the proposed transfer was not between different States. Even the Court’s inherent power to transfer was considered doubtful, but the Bench found it unnecessary to reach a definitive conclusion on jurisdiction because, on the merits, transfer was unwarranted.
Referring to the well-settled autonomy of letters of credit, the Court noted that disputes under a letter of credit are independent of disputes between buyer and seller or of insurance claims. Although some factual overlap with insurance litigation might exist, causes of action differ. The petitioners could raise all permissible defences—fraud, irretrievable injustice, or documentary discrepancies—directly before the DRT and, if aggrieved, pursue the statutory appellate route.
Most importantly, Sections 17 and 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the DRT for recovery proceedings by banks, while Section 31 mandates transfer of related suits from civil courts to the Tribunal. Citing Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Assn., the Court emphasized that the statutory scheme has been upheld as constitutional. Accordingly, retaining the case in the DRT is a legislative mandate that the Court should respect unless overriding equities dictate otherwise—equities the Court found absent here.
Holding and Implications
Petition Dismissed.
The case remains before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, reaffirming the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on Tribunals by the 1993 Act. The decision carries no broader doctrinal innovation but underscores that merely alleging common issues with unrelated insurance suits does not justify disrupting the statutory forum designed for bank debt recovery.
S. Rajendra Babu, J.— This is a petition filed for transfer of Original Application No. 846 of 1996 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) to the High Court of Delhi.
2. The allegations in the application before the Tribunal are that the petitioners requested for opening letters of credit in favour of M/s Palmex Enterprises of Singapore for a sum of US dollars 20,5992.51 to cover the payment of consignment of PVC, C&F Bombay; that the respondent issued letter of credit in favour of the said seller for the said sum; that the letter of credit was transmitted to the seller through a negotiating bank authorising him under this letter of credit to claim reimbursement by debiting the account of the respondent Bank with their New York office; that the seller is purported to have shipped goods on 30-8-1979 and negotiated documents as required under the letter of credit on 31-8-1979 with the negotiating bank; that the negotiating bank made the payment and on receipt of the original documents the issuing bank presented them to the buyer and asked the buyer to pay the amount; that the petitioner did not pay and hence the application before the Tribunal. The petitioner took the stand that it had come to know that the ship carrying the goods had sunk; that this fact was informed to the Bank and the documents of the goods were received by the respondent as sent by the petitioner; that the Bank lodged formal claims with the insurance company under copy to the petitioner; that the Bank retired the documents despite non-acceptance by the petitioner and informed the petitioner accordingly; that the petitioner informed the respondent of their negligence; that a suit had been filed by the respondent Bank against the petitioners on 9-7-1980; that leave to defend having been refused, a decree was passed; that an appeal was filed against the order refusing to grant leave. In the meanwhile, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came into force which established a tribunal thereunder to exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority under the Act in respect of cases filed by the banks and financial institutions. Thus, the aforesaid suit also stood transferred to the Tribunal. It is claimed that there are several cases of similar nature pending before the High Court wherein on account of sinking of the ships importers lodged claims against the insurance companies, while banks filed suits against the various importers under the letters of credit since importers disputed documents as discrepant and not in terms thereof. On refusal by the insurance companies to pay the claims of the importers, they filed suits for recovery of insurance claim. It is contended that in the suits filed by importers against insurance companies and in the suits filed by the banks, certain common issues arise. Therefore, it is prayed that this matter should be retransferred to the High Court. The petitioners' request is strongly resisted by the respondent.
3. It is clear that Article 139-A of the Constitution is not attracted to cases of this nature as this is not a case where transfer of a case from one High Court to another High Court is sought for. It is also doubtful whether Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable since the transfer of the proceeding is not from one State to another State. Whether inherent jurisdiction of this Court would be attracted to a proceeding of this nature is also in doubt. However, it may not be necessary to go into that aspect of the matter in the view we propose to take in this case.
4. This is an application based on a letter of credit. The settled legal position is that a letter of credit constitutes sole contract with the banker and its authorising the bank issuing letter of credit has no concern with any question that may arise between the seller and the purchaser of goods in respect of the purchase price; that there should, however, be strict compliance both by the customer at whose instance letter of credit was issued and by the banker, with his instructions; that in a claim on letter of credit, defence of fraud or apprehension of irretrievable injustice or non-compliance with instructions could also be raised. All such defences could be urged or agitated before the Tribunal by the petitioner and on a decision by it, an appeal also could be filed.
5. A suit based on insurance claim and a claim based on letter of credit arise out of different causes of action though it may be true that in the case pending before the High Court against the insurance company and in the application before the Tribunal certain common issues may arise. The exact nature of the other suits filed by other parties which are stated to be pending in the High Court and the cause for retention on its file is not available on record. Apart from this fact, we may notice that when exclusive jurisdiction has been given to the Tribunal under the Act in respect of matters that could be dealt with under Section 17 of the Act, the jurisdiction in other courts to entertain and decide such matters for recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions stood ousted as provided under Section 18 of the Act. Further, Section 31 of the Act provides for transfer of cases from civil courts to the Tribunal. Our view in this regard is consistent with what has been enunciated in Union of India v. Delhi High Court Bar Assn. (2002) 4 SCC 275, (2002) 2 SCR 450 wherein this Court, after examining the entire scheme of the Act, upheld the constitutional validity of the same.
6. In this background, we do not think that it is expedient for the ends of justice to direct transfer of this case to the High Court.
7. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Alert