Canara Bank vs Nishta Mall Management Company Private Limited & Ors.

6.

Apart from this, all the defendants in this case are residents of Mumbai, and none of the defendants reside in the jurisdiction of Delhi. As far as the cause of action is concerned, as per the citation of Hon'ble High Court, Delhi presented by the applicant, the cause of action, which action has been taken by declaring any loan of the applicant as non-performing assets, the applicant has defaulted in repaying the loan and the applicant has not maintained his loan account regularly. As the learned counsel for the applicant has stated that all the documents for issuing the loan have been executed within the jurisdiction of Delhi, execution of documents is a mere formality after sanction of loan by the banks.

7.

After considering the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant, facts mentioned in the Original Application, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, this forum is of the view that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Original Application. Present Original Application be returned to the applicant for filing before competent Debts Recovery Tribunal.

9.

Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.5 then draws the attention of this Tribunal to Lease Rental Tripartite Agreement between Future Lifestyle Fashions Limited (Lessee), respondent no.5, and Nishita Mall Management Company Private Limited (Lessor), respondent no.1, where in para 11.2 the borrower and the lessee have agreed that the courts and tribunals at New Delhi and Mumbai would have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute which may arise out of the contention with the Financing Documents and that accordingly any suit, action or proceedings (collectively referred to as "Proceedings") arising out of or in connection with the Financing Documents may be brought in such courts or the tribunals and the Borrower and the Lessee irrevocably submit to and accept for itself and in respect of its property, generally and unconditionally, the jurisdiction of those courts or tribunals.

10.

It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the appellant that aforesaid documents were not considered by the Ld. DRT while dismissing the OA vide its order dated 25.09.2023. In these circumstances, Ld. Counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order and directing the Ld. DRT to adjudicate the OA on merits.

11.

Heard. In view of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for appellant and documents available on record, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to Ld. DRT-III, Delhi with a direction to consider afresh the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the bank in respect of jurisdiction of the Ld. DRT to try the OA keeping in mind the documents appearing on record. However, it is made clear that the DRT shall decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove by this Tribunal.

6.

Heard and perused the record. Today, Ld. Counsel for applicant has drawn attention of this Tribunal to various agreements, as mentioned above, executed between the parties wherein address of Ambience Mall, Vasant Kunj; Select City Walk, Saket and Laxmi Nagar New Delhi have been given, however, none of address was mentioned in the memo of parties at the time of filing the OA nor the said addresses were mentioned in any Sanction Letter of the bank. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that when no Delhi address was mentioned in any Sanction letter of the bank and moreover, applicant bank itself has not added the said addresses of Delhi in the memo of parties, hence, no convincing reason has been given by the bank with regard to jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

6.1

Now the crucial point for the determination of jurisdiction, we have to set out the provision of Section 19(1) of RDB Act 1993. From the perusal of said provision, it is crystal clear that the matter relating to RDB Act, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall be decided as per RDH Act and no one can create the jurisdiction by executing any agreement between the parties. Now, we have analyzed the facts and circumstances and documents submitted by the applicant bank in support of this OA that the document relating to the sanction of the loan were executed at Mumbai, the account is maintained at Mumbai branch and payment of loan is also done at Mumbai branch of the bank. Moreover, no address of Delhi has been mentioned in the memo of parties. However, after sanctioning of the loan, the aforesaid agreements were executed between the parties wherein the address of the defendant is given at Delhi, hence, same cannot be considered for the sake of deciding the issue of jurisdiction.

6.2

So far as, jurisdiction clause given in Framework Agreement dated 02.06.2021 is concerned, merely by agreeing to jurisdiction at any place does not amounts to jurisdiction of the Tribunal at particular place and as per the choice of the parties, the jurisdiction cannot be determined.

6.3.

In the light of above discussions, this Tribunal is of the view that by mentioning addresses of defendants at Delhi in certain agreements executed between the parties, does not give any right to applicant bank for taking benefit of Section 19 of RDB Act. Hence, this Tribunal is of the considered view that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this OA since same does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

7.

With the above said directions / observations, Registry is directed to return this case file to the applicant bank along with certificate of court fees, as per rules for filling the same before competent Tribunal.