State Bank of India vs Prachi Construction, Cuttack and Others

Special leave granted.

In the instant cases a civil court had decreed the suit in favour of the Appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,55,505/-. When the execution application was filed, the same was transferred to the Dept. Recovery Tribunal who was then seized of the jurisdiction. The Respondent challenged the provisions of the said Act and -stay was granted by the High Court who, despite an application being filed in this behalf chose not to vacate the stay.

This Court in Sita Ram Singhania Vs. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. and Others, has observed that in suits which are instituted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal stays were being granted as a matter of course, this should not be done. The position with regard to execution of the decree by the Tribunal, when there is no challenge to the decree, would be the same. We see no reason as to why the court should have stayed the execution of the decree, challenge of the Act notwithstanding. The appeal accordingly allowed, the order of stay granted by High Court is set aside. The Tribunal will be at liberty to proceed with the execution application and dispose of the same in accordance with law.