JUDGMENT
A. Subbulakshmy, J. (Chairperson)
1. The Appellant D-13 filed IA-131/ 2003 before the DRT, Bangalore fordismissal of the main OA of the applicant Bank as not maintainable. That petition was dismissed by the PO, DRT, Bangalore. Aggrieved against that order the Appellant has come forward with this Appeal.
2. The Counsel for the appellant submits that the OA filed by the Bank itself is not maintainable since the defendants do not owe any money to the Bank and the discounting of cheques and it is not Banking business and the OA filed by the Bank itself is not maintainable. The Counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no pleading at all in the plaint with regard to the amount due by D-13 and the OA filed by the Bank is not maintainable.
3. The Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that whether the OA filed by the Bank is maintainable or not or whether the Defendants owe any money to the Bank, all these things can be decided only in the OA by elaborate enquiry and that cannot be decided in the Interlocutory Application. The Counsel for the respondent Bank further submits that the transactions relate to discounting of cheques and this relates only to Banking transaction and these transactions very much amount to Banking business and the OA filed by the Bank is very well maintainable.
4. Considered the arguments advanced by the Counsels for both sides.
5. The PO, DRT, Bangalore in his order has observed that he is not prepared to accept the case of the appellant denying his liability of D1 to D4 did not arise during the course of any business activity undertaken by the Bank and it is profit in nature. The PO has categorically stated that he was unable to agree for simple reason that the essential business activity undertaken by the Bank is supplying money for profit and while discounting or purchasing the cheques the Bank is bound to act only during the course of any business activity and the aberrations and the additional dimension of aberrations actuated by the defendant No. 6 cannot alter the nature of the business activity as being one undertaken by the Bank generally and the aberration of defendant No. 6 is apt to give rise to a different cause of action as against him with which the Tribunal is less concerned especially in determining the nature of the bulk of the claim in the suit and similarly the fact that the consideration for the loan and security documents happened to be a liability that had arisen in a tort cannot in any way nullify the validity of the loan and security documents. He has further found that the claim in the present suit cannot be consigned to the realm of tortious liability and in his considered opinion, it is very much a debt as defined in Section 2(g) of the RDDB & FI Act.
6. The Counsel for the appellant submits that it is only tortious liability and the OA filed by the Bank under this Act is not at all maintainable and it will not amount to a debt at all.
7. Whether the transactions involved in this OA are Banking transactions and whether the amount involved is debt or whether it is tortious as contended by the appellant, all these things cannot be decided in the IA. All these matters can be decided only after elaborate inquiry by let in oral as well as documentary evidence by both the parties and these matters cannot be now decided at this stage in Interlocutory Application. Hence I find that the petition filed by the appellant is not at all maintainable. The PO, DRT is to conduct elaborate enquiry in the OA giving opportunity to both the parties to let in oral as well as documentary evidence if they so desire and dispose of the case.
8. Appeal disposed of with the above said observations.