BANK OF BARODA vs SHRI NIPUN SHARMA on 9 July 2026

Debrts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi ilECUTTON l2l2OL8 BANK OF BARODAVS MR I{IPUN SHARJIIA & oRs Reserued on: 01.06.2025 Pronounced on: 09.07.2025 Present: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Mahaliyan, Counsel for applicant bank. Defendant nos.1 and 3 are exparte since 11.04.2019. None for defendant no.2' Matter is taken through V.C./Hybrid mode.

2. Execution Application no.2l20t9 has been filed on behalf of decree holder applicant bank under Section 31A of the RDB Act, 1993 for issuance of recovery certiflcate for recovery of USD ($) t2,69,979.51 equivalent to Rs.8,25,48,668/- (or equivalent to INR at the time of payment) along with interest @9.0olo per annum from 05.05.2014 to the date of payment fixed by Honble High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance Action.

3. The Ld. Counsel of applicant bank has submitted that the judgment dated 16.02.2016 to which execution is being prayed in the instant application has been pronounced by the Honble High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, being a court falling under reciprocating territories as per the provisions of Section 44 A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The decree holder declares that the application is within the limitation' It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may to issue recovery certificate against the Judgment Debtor for ment of decretal amount along with interest as per pay s9

decree. i.e. Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Recovery of USD ($) LZ,6g,g7g.St equivalent to Rs.8,25,48,668/- (Or Equivalent to INR at the time of payment) along with interest @9.0olo per Annum From 05-06-2014 to the date of payment fixed by Hon'ble High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance Action and direct them to file the list of moveable and immoveable properties belonging to him and to issue warrant of attachment and sale of movable or immovable properties belonging to judgment debtor as per list to be supplied by decree holder from time to time and allowing its proceeds to be adjusted towards realization of decree and pass an ad-interim exparte order directing the judgement debtor to disclose the details of his passpoft and not to leave India without the leave from this Hon'ble Tribunal and to issue of warrant of arrest against judgment debtor in case of their failure to pay as per law and to grant the cost of this execution to the decree holder and against the judgment debtor.

4. The Ld. Counselofjudgmentdebtor no.2/ Sh. Sunil Gupta has filed reply to Execution. In the reply it is submitted that the present Execution Application filed by the applicant bank is without any cause of action, as the judgment debtor has not committed any act, which has resulted into any kind of damage cause of action in favour of the applicant bank, therefore, the instant Execution Application is liable to be rejected at the threshold. It is submitted that the present Execution Application is liable to be dismissed since this Hon'ble Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present Execution Application as no cause of action for filing of the ication instant Execution Appl s arisen within the

J territorialjurisdiction of this Hon'bre Tribunar. It is further submitted that the present Execution Application is atso not maintainable in view of the express provision of Section 31A of the RDB Act, 1996. It is submitted that the Section 31A is clearly applicable to only such a case where decree was passed by Court before the commencement of the Amendment Act and the same had not yet been executed. However, the present matter it is apparent that the alleged decree/judgment on which the applicant bank is placing heavy reliance was passed on 16.02.2016 which is much later than the commencement of the Amendment Act i.e. 17.01.2000. Hencg the present Execution Application is not at all maintainable and deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. It is submitted that the present Execution Application is liable to be dismissed for non compliance of mandatory provision as provided under sub section 2 of Section 44A, CpC in as much as.the Applicant Bank has failed to file a certificate from such superior Couft stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted atong with the alleged Decree dated 16.02.2016. It is submitted that the present Execution Application is further liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions contained in sub section 3 of Section 4A, CPC read with Sectjon 13, CpC. It ls further submitted that the applicant bank is also guilty of suppression of material facts from this Hon'ble Tribunal, such as, the applicant bank has not produced any document(s) either pertaining to the alleged suit/action filed before the High Court of the Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance being Action No.985 of 2014 or regarding the alleged controversy between the applicant Bank and the judgment debtor. It is submitted that the applicant bank may please be directed to produce all relevant documents before this ti

Hon'ble Tribunal which are its power and possession pertaining to the alleged suit/action filed before the High Court of the Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance being Action No.9B5 of 2014 and the atleged controversy between the applicant bank and the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor craves reave of this Hon,ble Tribunal to amend, add or modify the present Objections/submissions after receiving such documenb as filed by the applicant bank. It is prayed that this Honue Tribunar may dismiss the Execution Application filed by the applicant bank.

5. Heard the Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank and perused the record.

6. The main contention of the Ld. counset of the applicant bank is that the Honble High Court of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region being a Court falling under reciprocating territories as per provision of Section 44 A of the CpC the decree holder prays that this Tribunal may issue the recovery certificate against the judgement debtor for the decretal amount along with up to date interest as per decree. The respondent has filed the objection and has submitted that as per provision contained under Section 31 A of the RDB Act where the decree has been passed after the commencement of the RDB Act, the recovery ceftificate cannot be issued. As the decree is of 2016, therefore, this Tribunar has no jurisdiction to issue the recovery certificate. In this regard I have gone through the provision of section 31 A of RDB Act, 1993 which runs as under:- 'i.....(I) Where a daree or order was pased by any Court fufore the commencement of the Rrcouery of Debb Due to tunk and Fthancial Sffltrons (Amendment) A@

2000andhasnotyetfun ex*utd, the4 the dere_ holder may apply to the Tribunat to pas an order for

7. From perusal of the above provision it is clear that the Tribunal has right to issue recovery certificate where the decree has been passed before commencernentofthe RDB Act. The RDB Act has been enacted in the year 2000 and therefore, the decree which has been passed in 2016 cannot be entertained and recovery certificate cannot be issued. So far as the provisions of the Section ut4 A of the cPC is concerned, the appricant may approach the Ld. civil Court for execution of the decree as per provisions contained under the CpC but this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue recovery ceftificate. In view of the above, the present execution application is liable to be dismissed. ruouery of the amount....,,

Order

Execution no. 2 of 20lB stands dismissed. File be consigned to records. ep Dated: 09.07.2026 (s^u_sHrL KU HAR FhSroGr) PRESIDING OFEICER DRT-II, Delhi m