TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ('DRT' for short) under Section 17. Therefore, if any aggrieved person has got any grievance against any "measure" taken by the borrower under Sub-section (4) of Section 13, remedy is to approach the DRT and not the Civil Court. The Civil Court in such circumstances has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of those matters, which fall under sub- section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act. Taking note of this settled law, trial Court declined to restrain Secured Creditors, from enforcing, security interest in the suit property. That order is challenged herein under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with 104 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Greater Bombay. 2 Briefly stated, undisputed facts of the case are as under; Plaintiffs are borrowers within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the SARFAESI Act ('Act' for short). They created a 'security interest' in the suit property, in favour of State Bank of India ('Bank' for short), by executing security agreement. Where upon, bank had sanctioned and disbursed loan to them. Plaintiffs' account was, categorised, under stressed asset and transferred to asset recovery bran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... April, 2021. Pursuant to the MOU, the plaintiffs made five to six, OTS proposals to the bank and last one was on 30th July, 2021. Plaintiffs pleaded, that, in response to proposals, once bank had offered to, settle the dues, for Rs.1,31,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Thirty-one Lacs Only). Plaintiffs would plead that on 30th July, 2021, they offered to pay 1,22,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twenty-two Lacs Only) to the bank on the suggestion of officer of defendant-Bank. However, it was not responded. Plaintiffs pleaded, that, defendant nos.1 and 2 began to establish contacts with officers of the bank, to discuss the settlement of loan, although they were instructed not to contact the bank since same would jeopardise the settlement talks. Plaintiffs would thus, allege, in spite of the same, defendant nos.1 and 2 began to speak directly with the officers of bank to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and due to that, chances of said loan being settled was getting bleak. It is Plaintiffs' case, that on 13th September, 2021, his last OTS proposal was rejected and five days later, the bank issued, sale notice dated 18th September, 2021. Thereafter, on 24th September, 2021, the plaintiff ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....defendant nos.1 and 2 to deposit 1,06,89,229/- or Rs.1,40,03,091/- to the credit of the loan account of the plaintiffs; (c) In the alternative, by temporary order of injunction, restrain the bank or its officers from conducting auctions or taking any measures under Rule 8(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in respect of the suit property. 3A. Question, that arises for consideration, is whether, evidence on record, prima-facie, establishes 'the fraud' practiced by the defendant nos.1 and 2 and Bank on plaintiffs to extinguish their title over the Suit Property. -My answer is 'No' for the following reasons. 4 It may be noted that; 1 Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 15th May, 2019. 2 MOU, was executed on 11th February, 2021. 3 Plaintiffs were to reach the settlement with Bank before 11th April, 2021. 4 Time line was extended by defendant nos.1 and 2 from time to time; yet, plaintiffs postponed and/or avoided to settle Bank's dues. 5 On 20th September, 2021 defendants terminated MOU vide advocate's notice. 6 On 20th September, 2021 Bank issued sale notice. 7 On 12th October, 2021 suit was filed. 8 On 25th October, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... discernible from mails dated 30th August, 2021; 28th July, 2021; 24th July, 2021. In fact, evidence, shows, Bank had offered to settle the dues for Rs.1.33 Crores (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Three Lacs Only) but plaintiffs avoided the same. Therefore, overview of the facts, leads me to hold that, termination of MOU by the defendant nos.1 and 2 was not dishonest commission or omission of act, as alleged by the plaintiffs. Likewise, since, plaintiffs also neglected the Bank's offer of settlement, one cannot allege that the bank adopted the measures to enforce the security interest, in secret understanding with defendant nos.1 and 2 with an intention, to extinguish plaintiffs' title over the Suit Property. In fact, the bank was not aware of the MOU executed between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1. As a consequence, for want of knowledge of the MOU, it is inconceivable, and improbable, to accept the plaintiffs' case that the defendant nos.1 and 2 colluded with the bank officers and managed to purchase the suit property at undervalued price. Although in the plaint, plaintiffs alleged secret understanding between the officers of the bank and the defendant nos.1 and 2, the allegations req....