STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RANJAN CHEMICALS LTD
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-106
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on October 11,2006

STATE BANK OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
RANJAN CHEMICALS LTD. Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAJEEV THOMAS S/O THOMAS VS. HEEJA ANTONY W/O RAJEEV THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2018-7-680] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. KIRLOSKAR CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2008-6-577] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRALBANK OF INDIA VS. PARKAR SECURITIES LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2009-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
BOLLAVA SATHYASHANKARA VS. P. MANJUNATHA UPADHYA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-188] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANA SESHATHRI VS. E.ANUJA [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-334] [REFERRED TO]
SELECTION PARTNERSHIP FIRM VS. CHIEF MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-2011-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
INTEGRATED FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. GARWARE MARINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-399] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR VS. VIMLESH [LAWS(UTN)-2016-3-69] [REFERRED]
IFCI VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS LIMITED VS. SRGP CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2024-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
COTTAGE INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION LTD. VS. BINDU NEELAKANTA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-203] [REFERRED TO]
K SELVARAJ VS. CHITRADEVI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-402] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER PRAKASH PUNJ VS. HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-356] [REFERRED]
SALEEM BABU VS. HYDRU [LAWS(KER)-2015-10-266] [REFERRED]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. BENGAL POTTERIES LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2008-8-97] [REFERRED TO]
ARCHANA BISWAS VS. BYAPTI BANERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2013-6-76] [REFERRED TO]
POMI SENGUPTA VS. BISWAJIT SENGUPTA AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
BEKAE PROPERTIES (P) LTD. VS. KOTHARI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-255] [REFERRED TO]
NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD VS. HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-2009-7-160] [REFERRED]
RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL VS. GOPI KRISHNAN [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-96] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH GANDHI VS. UNION BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
AMBAY COKE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-88] [REFERRED TO]
TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED VS. BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-558] [REFERRED TO]
RAJDHANI COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD VS. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
MANOMAYA KHATIWARA VS. CHURAMONI KHATIWARA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
SH. RAVINDER PRAKASH PUNJ VS. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPN. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-234] [REFERRED TO]
COSTA AND COMPANY PVT LTD VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2012-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV INDRAVADAN DANI VS. RUPAL SANJEEV DANI [LAWS(BOM)-2009-11-44] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV INDRAVADAN DANI VS. RUPAL SANJEEV DANI [LAWS(BOM)-2008-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ AUTO LTD VS. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
KARUPPASAMY VS. SUMATHI [LAWS(MAD)-2023-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF M/S JAIPUR SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) VS. THE PODAR MILLS LTD. PODAR CHAMBERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-180] [REFERRED TO]
INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD VS. MARSHALS POWER AND TELECOM INDIA LTD [LAWS(SC)-2006-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
VCK SHARE AND STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD VS. BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. OM NARAIN AGRAWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2011-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
RANJAN CHETIA VS. AMIT DEV [LAWS(GAU)-2016-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD VS. VCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTHI GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY VS. RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-7-69] [REFERRED TO]
ARKA LAKSHMI MANOHARI AND ORS. VS. PILLAMOGOLLA RANGA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2015-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
PRABIR CHATTERJEE VS. ICICI BANK LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2010-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. PARKAR SECURITIES LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2009-7-231] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. DHANESWARI BARUAH & ANOTHER VS. SRI DAMBARUDHAR BARUAH [LAWS(GAU)-2016-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. VS. VCK SHARES & STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-76] [REFERRED TO]
CAMBRIDGE SOLUTIONS LIMITED VS. GLOBAL SOFTWARE LIMITED; ING VYSEYA BANK LIMITED; DSQ SOFTWARE LIMITED; DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I; RECOVERY OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-134] [REFERRED]
M/S. CAMBRIDGE SOLUTIONS LIMITED VS. GLOBAL SOFTWARE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
S ARUMUGAM VS. P POOVARAGHAVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-430] [REFERRED TO]
TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED JAYALAKSHMI ESTATES VS. M/S BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-292] [REFERRED TO]
JOSE ANTONY THOTTASSERY VS. ANIL KURUVILLA [LAWS(KER)-2012-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA DEVI VS. KHALIL AHMED [LAWS(MPH)-2011-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
HASSAD FOOD COMPANY Q S C & ANR VS. BANK OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-142] [REFERRED TO]
VAKRANGEE SOFTWARES LIMITED VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-11-68] [REFERRED TO]
DEBARSHI BHATTACHARJEE VS. BITHI DEY [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-67] [REFERRED TO]
MAGNOSTAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS VS. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-333] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA MOUNT ROAD BRANCH VS. M GOVINDASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-6-79] [REFERRED TO]
P V ARUMUGAM VS. GURUSAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-253] [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH VS. BENNY J. ARICATT [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-39] [REFERRED TO]
MODELAMA EXPORTS LTD VS. TRIMURTI EXPORTS [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-524] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAMID VS. HAMIDA BANO AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-3-175] [REFERRED TO]
CHELLAM VS. N. SRINIVASAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-12-105] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS LIMITED VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-397] [REFERRED TO]
NAJMA BEGUM VS. BNATUL QURESH GIRLS INTER COLLEGE AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2020-7-28] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the bank) challenging the order of the High Court of Patna affirming an order of Subordinate Judge- I, Patna in Suit No. 168 of 2001 refusing to transfer the suit for being tried jointly with O.A. No. 18 of 2002 filed by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The bank sought the transfer on the basis that the suit was in the nature of a counter claim to its claim and arose out of the same cause of action as the one put in suit by the bank before the Tribunal. The bank originally granted a term loan to M/s. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) of Rs. 30 lakhs. The bank further extended a cash credit facility to the company. The company failed to meet its obligations under the account. Thereupon the bank issued a notice calling upon the company to repay the amounts due under the loan transactions and to close its accounts. On receipt of that notice, the company filed a suit before the Court of Subordinate Judge -I, of Patna as Suit No. 168 of 2001 claiming that the bank had failed to fulfil its obligations while making available the cash credit facility and has not honoured its commitments in time to release the working capital which was agreed to as part of a rehabilitation process of the company and because of the delay on the part of the bank in fulfilling its obligations, the company had suffered losses leading to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, recommending its winding up and in view of the fact that the losses were incurred because of the failure of the bank to fulfil its obligations, the company was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1739.15 lacs as damages with interest thereon. The bank in its turn approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 by way of O.A. No. 18 of 2002 filed under Section 19(1) of that Act.
(3.)In the suit, the bank moved an application praying that the said suit be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal for being tried jointly with O.A. No. 18 of 2002 pending before the Tribunal, since both proceedings arose out of the same cause of action, namely, the grant of a loan and the providing of a cash credit facility by the bank to the company and that the suit by the company was really in the nature of a counter claim or set off, as against the claim of the bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 833.06 lakhs on the loan account. The prayer of the bank was resisted by the company contending that the cause of action for its suit was different from the cause of action put in action by the bank in the Recovery Tribunal, that the suit for damages was not in the nature of a counter claim or set off, but that it was an independent action that the Civil Court alone had jurisdiction to try and that the transfer prayed for was not liable to be granted. The Trial Court took the view that the suit filed by the company did not come with the purview of Section 19(9) of the Recovery of Debts Act and it could not be treated as a counter claim in O.A. No. 18 of 2002 and hence the prayer was liable to be rejected. On a challenge by the bank of the above said order before the High Court of Patna, that Court held that there was no bar created by the Recovery of Debts Act or any other law, which could prevent a person from filing a suit in the civil Court or making any claim, much less, one for damages which was even otherwise, completely alien to the claim based on the loan made by the bank before the Tribunal. Since the suit was not hit by Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court was not affected and the Court had full authority to proceed with the suit for damages which was filed earlier and which was unconnected with the loan transaction. The Revision was thus dismissed.... This order is challenged in this appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.