ELLAQUAI DEHATI BANK vs GHULAM RASOOL MIR on 24 June 2026

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAI--I, CHANDIGARH TA No. 287 of 2023 Ellaquai Dehati Bank Versus Ghulam Rasool Mir Dated: 24.06.2026 Item No. 99 Present: Mr.Nonish Kumar proxy for Mr.Vivek Verma. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Mr.Abhimanyu Sharma proxy for Ms.Parmeet Kaur, Counsel for the defendant. On 06.06.2017. Ellaquai Dehati Bank (Bank) had filed the suit for the recover)’ of Rs. 79,14.313/- against Ghulam Rasool Mir (defendant). in the court of Principal District Judge. Pulwama.

2. The averments in the plaint are that the defendant was in the service of the Bank. He had remained posted as Manager, Pulwama Branch. from 05.11.2012 till 31.03.2014. Earlier, he had remained posted as Field OfficeI from May 2011 to November 2011. During his tenure, 49 borrowers totally refused to have mailed any loan from the Bank. 1-he Bank had conducted preliminary inquiry. Yide report dated 25.02.2015, Chief Vigilance Officer came to the conclusion that defendant had caused loss to the Bank. Accordingly. the Bank filed the presFnt suit for the recovery of Rs. 79, 14.313/- against the defendant.

3. ride order dated 26.06.2023. Additional District Judge. Pulwama, transfers'ed this suit from Pulwama to this Tribunal. The order passed by Principal District Judge. Pulwama. states that in view of the provisions of Section 3 of The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act. 1993 and notification No. S.O. 4717(E). 4718(E) and 4719(E). dated 04.10.2022 and notification No. S.O. 4321(E), dated 06.09.2018. this case can be tried only by the DRT. Accordingly. this suit was transferrud to this Tribunal. t

4. However. a perusal of the plaint would show that this suit was not filed by the Bank to recover any loan. In fact. as per the averments of the plaint. the Bank had filed this suit against the defendant. who was its employee. to recover the misappropriated amount by the defendant.

5. Section 19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. 1993 states that where a person or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any I

+ DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction etc.

6. Section 2(g) of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 states that '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 durjng the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the assigned. or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court etc.

7. In view of the above provisions, this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate only those cases, wherein the bank has advanced any money to somebody who fails to repay the same. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court also in Bank of India versus Vijay Ramniklal Kapadi.a A.I.R. 1997 Guj . 75 has held that fraud committed by any employee of the bank cannot or should not be construed a 'debt’. Further, misappropriation of the amount of the bank by its employee and recovery thereof by day of the suit can never be construed as a debt- .

8. In view of this, I am of the considered view that it is only the civil court which has the jurisdiction to try this suit and not this Tribunal. Accordingly. the nIe of this case is sent back to Principal District Judge, Pulwama for proceeding in the matter as per law.

9. Bank is directed to appear before the Pulwama. on 21.07.2026. Principal DRT-1. Chandigarh District Judge. Pronounced in open court Dated: 24.06.2026 N4anoj