Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1322 - HC - Indian LawsWhether, having regard to the Plaintiff's case in the suit herein as noted below, the Defendant should be restrained by a temporary injunction (a) from prosecuting its Original Application pending in the DRT at the date of the present suit against the Plaintiff and (b) from taking any step under and/or relying upon the Deed of Indemnity and the Deed of Hypothecation, of which cancellation is sought by the Plaintiff in the present suit? Held that: - In Nahar Industrial Enterprises case [2009 (7) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court, relying upon the decision in Indian Bank Vs. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd. [2006 (4) TMI 472 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], held that Sections 17 and 18 of the RDDB Act bar the Civil Court's jurisdiction only in regard to applications by a bank or a financial institution for recovery of its debts. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not barred in regard to any suit filed by a borrower or any other person against a bank for any relief. No one has any independent right to approach the DRT without having to wait for the bank or financial institution to approach it first. Though such a person may approach the DRT with his claim by way of a defence of set off or a counter-claim upon being made a defendant in the Bank's OA, the continuance of his claim for set off or counterclaim, as the case may be, is entirely dependent on the application filed by the bank. At any rate, even in such a case the DRT cannot grant any declaratory relief to the claimant or even a decree of cancellation of any document. It is, therefore, clear that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's suit and the Plaintiff cannot be compelled to go to the DRT for redressal of its grievances. The power to restrain a person from prosecuting a pending proceeding can only be exercised (i) for preventing multiplicity of proceedings and (ii) by a court superior to the court in which such proceeding is pending. The Notice of Motion is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
|