JUDGMENT
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.
1. The opposite party tiled O.A. No. 107 of 1994 against the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (I), Kolkata, inter alia, praying for certificate or order for payment of a sum of Rs. 10,32,617.84 along with interest and also for declaration that the assets mentioned in the schedule to the said application remain hypothecated and charged to the opposite party as security. The said O.A. No. 107 of 1994 was transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal (III), Kolkata and was renumbered as T.A. No. 83 of 2002.
2. That on receiving a copy of the said O.A. No. .1.07 of 1994 the petitioners appointed M/s. T. Paul Company, Chartered Accountants to scrutinise the statement of accounts. The petitioners alleged that on scrutiny it was found that the opposite party by reason of arithmetical and clerical errors in the statement of accounts increased its alleged claim by a sum of Rs. 92,436.36 The petitioners submitted that if a sum of Rs. 92,436.36 is deducted from the purported claim of the opposite party then such claim stands reduced to Rs. 9,40,181.48.
3. The petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal for dismissing the said T.A. No. 83 of 2002 on the ground, inter alia, that the learned Tribunal has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the said T.A. No. 83 of 2002 since according to the petitioners alleged claim has to be reduced to Rs. 9,40,181.48.
4. The petitioners also filed a petition in the said T.A. No. 83 of 2002 praying for staying proceedings of the said T.A. No. 83 of 2002 until disposal of the petition of the petitioners.
5. That by order dated 3.9.2002 the learned Tribunal treated the petitioners’ application as a written-statement and directed the party to adduce evidence. The learned Tribunal also directed the petitioners to pay half of admitted amount within 60 days and if such payment is made it shall be treated as part satisfaction of an order that may be ultimately passed. The learned Tribunal kept the second application-on-record without any order.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 3.9.2002 the petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal being Appeal No. DRAT/CAL/A-6/2003. The learned Appellate Tribunal by order dated 13.11.2002 stayed the operation of the order dated 3.9.2002.
7. That the said appeal ultimately came up for hearing before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata and the learned Appellate Tribunal by order dated 19.2.2003 dismissed the said appeal.
8. The first point raised by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that since the petitioners had made an application for dismissing the T.A. No. 83 of 2002 pending before the learned Tribunal on the ground that the opposite party’s claim cannot exceed Rs. 9,40,181,48 i.e. less than Rs. 10 lakhs and unless such issue is decided the learned Tribunal cannot direct the petitioners to make any deposit of any sum of money. This Mr. Roy Chowdhury submits because according to Mr. Roy Chowdhury in the event the learned Tribunal ultimately comes to the conclusion that the claim is less than Rs. 10 lakhs then according to Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the learned Tribunal will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application brought before it by the opposite party. Mr. Roy Chowdhury submits that unless and until the Tribunal decides the question as to whether the allegation made by the petitioners, that is, the claim of the bank cannot be more than Rs. 9,40,181.48 is correct or not, the learned Tribunal cannot direct the petitioners to deposit any sum of money. For the purpose of considering this point it is necessary to see what the petitioners have said in their aforesaid application. In the said application for dismissing the said T.A. No. 83 of 2002 the petitioners have stated, inter alia, that in order to examine the correctness of the statement of accounts filed by the opposite party the petitioners appointed M/s. T. Paul & Co., Chartered accountants for verification and examination of the said statement of Accounts, that the said Chartered Accountants have checked and verified the opposite party’s statement of accounts and came to the conclusion that there are gross mistake in the said statement of accounts and that the claim of the opposite party cannot be more than Rs. 9,40,181.48. In paragraph 10 of such application the petitioners have made the following statement:
“According to the said report, the bank has calculated a total sum of Rs. 92,436.36 in excess of their legitimate claim and accordingly the bank’s claim shall not exceed Rs. 9,40,181.48”.
9. Mr. Roy Chowdhury submits that if this admission is taken then the learned Tribunal loses its jurisdiction. To deal with this point it is necessary that certain provisions of the said Act are looked into. Section 1(4) of the said Act reads as follows:
“1. Short title, extent, commencement and application.–
(1) …
(2)…
(3)…
(4) The provisions of this Act shall not apply where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institution or to a consortium of banks or financial institutions is less than ten lakh rupees or such other amount, being not less than one lakh rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify”.
10. The word “debt” has been defined in Section 2(g) of the said Act. The said definition is as follows:
‘2. Definitions-In this Act, unless the contest otherwise requires,….”
(g) “debt” means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any Civil Court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application”.
11. The words “amount of debt due to any bank” have to be understood by considering the definition of the word “debt” in Section 2(g) of the said Act. According to such definition “debt” means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions. Thus the word “debt” means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due. In other words the word “debt” as defined in Section 2(g) docs not mean the actual amount that may ultimately be found to be due from any person to a bank. Now, if we read the word “debt” appearing in Section 1(4) by applying the definition of such word as quoted above then it is the claim of the opposite party, that is, the amount which they have claimed against the petitioners in its application before the Tribunal, which shall determine as to whether or not the learned Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the proceedings. In this context the opposite party has made a claim for Rs. 10,32,617.84 plus interest. Thus in my view the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the application brought by the opposite party.
12. Now the question whether the learned Tribunal was right in directing the petitioners to pay half of the admitted amount needs to be discussed and decided. The submission made by Mr. Roy Chowdhury that if the petitioners’ allegation with regard to the amount due to the bank/opposite party is admitted then the Tribunal will lose its jurisdiction, is not tenable since the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is not dependent upon the allegation made by the petitioners in their application. From the statements made in such application, as I have already indicated earlier, it appears that the petitioners have in effect made an admission that according to the report of their Chartered Accountants the bank/ opposite party has calculated a total sum of Rs. 92,436.36 in excess of the legitimate claim and accordingly the banks/opposite party’s claim shall not exceed Rs. 9,40,181.48. Under Rule 12(5) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal(Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) the learned Tribunal does have the authority to direct the defendant to make payment of the amount to the extent of the admission. Mr. Roy Chowdhury’s contention that the Tribunal cannot direct such payment to be made by the petitioners unless and until it comes to a specific finding as to what is the actual amount due to the bank/opposite party cannot be accepted also in view of the fact that such enquiry will essentially involve an elaborate trial which will include taking of evidence. This cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. Mr. Roy Chowdhury referred to Sub-rule (7) of Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules. But in the instant case considering the statements made by the petitioners in their aforesaid application for dismissal of T.A. No. 83 of 2002, particularly in paragraph 10 of such application, in my view Rule 12(7) cannot in any way help the petitioners. I thus do not find any substance in the first point raised by Mr. Roy Chowdhury. I find that the learned Tribunal was quite justified in directing the petitioners to deposit the half of the admitted amount. However, time for deposit of such amount by the petitioners is extended for a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
13. Mr. Roy Chorwdhury’s next submission was that the learned Tribunal acted illegally in treating the petitioners’ application as written-statement. It appears from the perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal that the Tribunal had treated the petitioners’ application as a written-statement but on perusing the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal I find that the petitioners were given time to file the written-statement. Hence this Court does not find any substance in such submission of Mr. Roy Chowdhury. But such time to file the written -statement has since expired. The petitioners will be at liberty to file their written-statement within two weeks from the date of this order.
14. Mr. Roy Chowdhury’s next submission was that the learned Tribunal did not dispose of the petitioners’ application for stay which was filed before the learned Tribunal. This Court finds that such application for stay has lost all its importance and meaning in view of the fact that the petitioners’ main application for dismissal of the said T.A. No. 83 of 2002 stands disposed of by way of dismissal. Hence, this Court does not find any substance in such submission of Mr. Roy Chowdhury. Mr. Roy Chowdhury lastly submits that the learned Appellate Tribunal should not have directed the petitioners to pay the costs of the appeal. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such direction of the learned Appellate Tribunal.
15. Thus the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is disposed of. The parties are given liberty to mention the matter before the learned Tribunal for early hearing of the claim petition.
16. There will be no order as to costs in respect of the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.