Anju Kejriwal vs Indian Overseas Bank And Ors.

Ranjit Singh, J

Having filed this S.A. before DRT-I, Chandigarh in the year 2012 and after prosecuting it for over a period of three years, the applicant has now filed this application for transfer of the S.A. from the Tribunal at Chandigarh to Tribunal at Delhi. The obvious aim of this prayer is to get over the objection of jurisdiction raised by the respondent-Bank, as it is stated that the property in question is situated at Delhi. No doubt, this S.A. was filed by the appellant prior to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Amish Jain & Anr. v. ICICI Bank Ltd., 192 (2012) DLT 701 (FB) : IV (2012) EC 552 (FB) : 2012 (132) DRJ 69 (FB), but, even thereafter, the appellant has continued to prosecute this S.A. before the Tribunal below, with other connected cases which are pending before the said Tribunal. The appellant as such has allowed the case to reach finality and when it is on the verge of decision being reserved for orders and listed for pronouncement, the present application is filed by the applicant.

It is noticed that the S.A. was listed on 11.4.2014 for pronouncement of judgment on the territorial jurisdiction. On this day, it was pointed out that some other cases were listed before this Tribunal for hearing to decide the issue of jurisdiction in the cases pending before the Tribunals prior to the date of pronouncement of the order in the case of Amish Jain (supra). The Tribunal accordingly adjourned the S.A. to await the orders from this Tribunal.

Subsequently, on 13.5.2014, the order passed by this Tribunal in the case titled M/s. Vimoni India (Pvt) Ltd. v. SBI & Anr. was placed before the Tribunal. In this background, the Counsel for the applicant pointed out before the Tribunal below that the order on some I.A. had not been pronounced and that the issue of jurisdiction was also pending. The Counsel for the applicant also pointed out that SLP filed against the judgment in Amish Jain (supra) was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal accordingly adjourned the case to await the outcome of the SLP.

When the case was taken up for hearing on 28.8.2015, applicant filed another IA No. 678/2015 praying for fixing the date of hearing after the date fixed by the Delhi High Court wherein the order passed by this Tribunal [perhaps M/s. Vimoni India (supra)] was under challenge. This prayer for adjournment was opposed by the Counsel for the Bank on the ground that the writ petition pending before the High Court would have no bearing on this issue. The Tribunal has noticed that this S.A. was filed on 8.2.2012, the recovery sought in the S.A. was to the tune of Rs. 100 crore where the Tribunal had granted some interim protection on 9.2.2012. The Tribunal below has taken note of a number of I.As. which came to be filed from time to time, leading to delay in the disposal of the S.A. The Tribunal has rightly noticed that this S.A. has remained pending even after final arguments for over a year. The I.A. filed by the appellant has accordingly been dismissed and the case was adjourned for disposing of the S.A.

It would be strange to notice that the applicant has himself filed this S.A. before the Tribunal at Chandigarh. The Bank has raised objection regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the S.A. Ratio of Amish Jain's case (supra) is against the applicant, who now apparently is making the present move to seek transfer of the S.A. to tide over the objection of jurisdiction raised by the respondent-Bank.

The applicant has not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal below in I.A. filed by it, but has filed the present application praying for transfer of this S.A. to Delhi. To me, this appears to be rather a clever move on the part of the appellant. Having themselves filed this S.A. before the Tribunal at Chandigarh, the applicant has made this move to seek transfer of S.A. when confronted with the objection to jurisdiction of the Tribunal, that too, when the case is at the stage of final disposal. This application obviously is aimed at frustrating the plea of jurisdiction raised by the Bank. The applicant has either to face the objection or to take action to file S.A. before the Tribunal having proper jurisdiction. The S.A. cannot be ordered to be transferred to help the applicant to tide over the objection about jurisdiction.

The applicant had earlier succeeded in getting an order in her favour which was set aside by the Tribunal while remanding the case before the Tribunal below. The earlier P.O. has demitted the office and DRT-I, Chandigarh is now headed by different P.O. Parties should avoid conveying an impression that prayer for transfer of S.A. has got anything to do with the change of P.O. The applicant and other borrower had earlier challenged the order passed by this Tribunal transferring this case to DRT-II, Chandigarh on reference received from the then P.O., DRT-I, Chandigarh. The case has gone to DRT-I, Chandigarh only once the earlier P.O. has demitted the office. Impression should not be allowed to emerge that the party is attempting to avoid a forum. Under the circumstances, the prayer made for transfer of this S.A. from DRT-I, Chandigarh to DRT at Delhi is declined. The application is accordingly dismissed.