Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.32 seconds)Section 18 in The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors on 23 January, 2004
13. Now, if the substance of the pleading of the
plaintiff is looked into without any addition or
subtraction, it clearly transpires that the suit
is filed by the plaintiff not only with mala fide
intention to misuse and abuse the process of law,
as will be discussed herein under, the plaint
also does not disclose the material facts
constituting cause of action and the material
facts as to when it arose, as contemplated in
Rule 1(e) of Order VII. As held by the Supreme
Court in case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. Vs.
Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. (supra),
the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause
of action must be stated in the plaint and
Page 26 of 36
HC-NIC Page 26 of 36 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:32:18 IST 2017
C/CRA/10/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
omission of a single material fact would lead to
an incomplete cause of action. When Rule 1 of
Order VII requires the particulars as mentioned
therein to be stated in the plaint, more
particularly the facts constituting cause of
action and as to when it arose, the omission to
mention such particulars in the plaint would make
the plaint defective leading to the conclusion
that it did not disclose the cause of action.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
I.T.C. Limited vs The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal & ... on 19 December, 1997
8. In Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Owners and
Parties, Vessel M. V. Fortune Express & Ors.
(supra) dealt with the similar issue and held in
paragraph 11 as under:-
Section 41 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd vs Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp on 29 July, 2009
18. In the instant case, the applicant Bank
having already initiated the proceedings under
Section 17 of the DRT Act, for crystallizing
their dues as permitted by the BIFR, the suit
filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking
reliefs in respect of the same subject matter
would be completely barred under Section 18 of
the said Act. It can not be gainsaid that under
Section 17 the Tribunal has powers and
jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications
from the banks and financial institutions for
recovery of debts, and under Section 18 no other
Court or authority has jurisdiction or powers in
relation to the matters specified in Section 17.
The learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Joshi would have been
justified in relying upon the observations made
by the Supreme Court in case of Nahar Industrial
Enterprises Limited Vs. Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation (supra), if the bank had not
filed applications under Section 17 for recovery
of debts due to the bank, and if the respondent
had filed peremptory suit for obtaining orders of
injunction against the applicant Bank. However,
when the applicant Bank has filed the proceedings
before the DRT, the respondent was expected to
claim set off or counter-claim in respect of the
Page 33 of 36
HC-NIC Page 33 of 36 Created On Sat Oct 14 00:32:18 IST 2017
C/CRA/10/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
transactions in question, which were also the
subject matter of the proceedings before the DRT.
The respondent could not have asked for the
prayers in the suit seeking stay of the
proceedings pending before the DRT, Mumbai, which
was not the Tribunal subordinate to the trial
Court. As rightly submitted by the learned Sr.
Advocate Mr.Thakore such a relief of injunction
for restraining any person from instituting or
prosecuting any proceedings in a Court not
subordinate to that from which the injunction is
sought, would also be barred under Clause (b) of
Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. The
respondent - plaintiff instead of filing counter-
claim or making claim of set off in the
proceedings initiated by the applicant Bank
before the DRT, Mumbai, has filed the suit for
recovery of the amount in respect of the same
subject matter, on which applicant Bank has filed
the proceedings before the DRT, Mumbai, which
would also be not tenable in view of Clause (h)
of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. Such a
vexatious and dishonest litigation deserves to be
dismissed right at the threshold.