Calcutta High Court
Banwarilal Agarwal & Anr vs Basudeo Agarwalla & Ors on 16 July, 2014
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
GA No. 2561 of 2013
CS No. 308 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
BANWARILAL AGARWAL & ANR.
Versus
BASUDEO AGARWALLA & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 16th July, 2014.
Appearance:
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sudeep Palchowdhury, Adv.
The Court : - In a suit for declaration that a Memorandum of Understanding dated February 10, 2011 be declared null and void and for cancellation of a credit sanction advice and for other reliefs, the plaintiff applied for an injunction restraining the defendants and particularly, defendant no.6 from giving any effect or further effect to any security or any personal guarantees given by the defendant no.6 pursuant to and/or in connection with the Memorandum of Understanding dated February 10, 2011.
It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding dated February 10, 2011 the plaintiffs were to be introduced as a shareholder in a company. The plaintiffs were not made 2 shareholders of such company. According to the plaintiffs, since the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding dated February 10, 2011 were not acted upon, the plaintiffs were not liable to the defendants particularly to the defendant no.6.
Upon the application being moved diverse interim orders were passed from time to time. The last of the interim order was dated September 30, 2013 which permitted the defendant no.6 to take proceedings for recovery of its dues under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It was also submitted by the plaintiffs that none of the defendants have used any affidavit in spite of directions for the same.
I have considered the contentions of the plaintiffs and the materials on record.
The suit was for declaration and injunction. The relief in the suits sought for by the plaintiffs revolved around a Memorandum of Understanding dated February 10, 2011. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding dated February 10, 2011 did not discharge their obligations thereto. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, they were not liable to the defendant no.6. The defendant no.6 as the Bank claimed that the plaintiffs were its debtors. A banker, in my view, ought not to be restrained from realizing its claims from its debtors in accordance with law. No case, in my view, was made out by the plaintiffs warranting an order of injunction on the defendant no.6 restraining the defendant no.6 from proceeding to realize its claim against persons claimed to be debtors including the defendants herein and the plaintiffs. 3
In such circumstances, I find no merit in the application. Prima facie case warranting grant of interim relief in favour of the plaintiff has not been made out. The defendant no.6 cannot be restrained from realizing its claim in accordance with law against persons which it claims to be its debtors including the plaintiffs herein.
In such circumstances, GA No. 2561 of 2013 is dismissed. No order as to costs. All interim orders passed therein are vacated.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) snn.