JUDGMENT
D.K. Deshmukh, J.
1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs-ICICI Ltd. have filed the suit in their capacity as trustees of the debenture-holders for recovery of amounts that are due to the debenture-holders from the defendants. By this notice of motion, the plaintiffs seek appointment of the court receiver in relation to the securities.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that this suit filed by the financial institution is not maintainable before this court in view of the provisions of section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1995. Learned counsel submits that the amount for which a decree is claimed by the plaintiffs is the amount due to the bank and the decree is claimed by the plaintiffs in their own favour. Learned counsel submits that the amount that is claimed in the suit is a debt within the meaning of the Act due to the plaintiffs from the defendants. Therefore, the jurisdiction of this court to hear the suit is barred.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, submits that the suit has not been filed by the plaintiffs-financial institution for recovery of the money that is due to the plaintiffs from the defendants. The money is due from the defendants to the debenture-holders for whom the plaintiffs are acting as a trustee pursuant to the agreement between the parties. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the provisions of section 17 of the Act and the definition of the term “debt” found in the Act, the suit would be maintainable before this court. Learned counsel submits that there is a claim made in the plaint for a decree for the amount of remuneration payable to the plaintiffs in its capacity for acting as trustee. Learned counsel submits that the amount is Rs. 51,329 and, therefore, the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit even by financial institutions claiming a decree in the amount of less than Rs. 10 lakhs is maintainable before this court.
4. Now in the light of the rival submissions, if the plaint is perused, it is clear from the averments in para. 3 of the plaint that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs, for recovery of the amounts which are due to the debenture-holders, in the capacity of the plaintiffs as trustees for the debenture-holders. The plaintiffs are not claiming that the amount that is claimed in the suit is due to the plaintiffs in their own right but the amount is due to them as trustees for the debenture-holders. In other words, what the plaintiffs say is that the amount is due to the debenture-holders and the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the benefit of the debenture-holders. A perusal of the provisions of section 18 of the Act shows that the jurisdiction of this court on its original side is barred in relation to the matter specified in section 17 of the Act. It is clear from the provisions of section 17 that jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal constituted under the Act to entertain suits and applications filed by financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such financial institutions. A perusal of the definition of the term “debt” found in section 2(g) of the Act shows that the debt is money due to the bank or financial institution. In the present case, as the amount claimed in the suit is not claimed by the plaintiffs to be due to the plaintiffs-financial institutions, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, therefore, the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit will not be ousted. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that this court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
5. Now so far as the notice of motion is concerned, it is common ground before me that the receiver in relation to the same properties has already been appointed by this court by an order passed in Suit No. 1267 of 1998. In my opinion, therefore, it would be appropriate to appoint the court receiver in this suit also on the same terms and conditions on which the court receiver has been appointed in the above-mentioned suit.
6. This notice of motion is granted in terms of prayer (a) excluding the bracketed portion. It is directed that the receiver shall hold the property which he is already holding as receiver appointed in Suit No. 1267 of 1998 on the same terms and conditions as fixed in Suit No. 1267 of 1998.