- (1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.5.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No. 312 of 2010 whereby the application of the defendant-Bank under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and the plaint filed by the appellant-plaintiffs has been rejected.
(2.) The facts of the case as borne out from the plaint are that the appellant-plaintiffs had availed financial assistance from the defendant-Bank which was in the form of cash credit limits and loans. The entire credit facility, which was for an amount of several crores, was taken by the plaintiffs in the year 1998. For availing such facility, the plaintiffs had mortgaged five properties being: (i) Flat No. 3 on plot no. 2B, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi; (ii) Flat No. 3 on plot no. 2C, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi; (iii) Bungalow no. 31, Mayo Road, Cantt., Kanpur; (iv) Old Plot no. 28 (new plot no. 4) Shitala Bazar, Gajjupurwa, Kanpur Nagar; and (v) House no. 4B, Shital Bazar, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar.
(3.) Admittedly there was default in payment of loans and sometime in the month of December, 2006, out of four accounts of plaintiff-appellant no.1, the defendant-Bank classified a part of one account as non-performing asset (NPA). Two other accounts of the plaintiffs were declared as NPA in March, 2008. Thereafter, on 27.8.2009 the defendant-Bank issued a notice under section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short referred to as the 'Act of 2002') determining the liability of the plaintiff no.1 for an amount of Rs. 29,72,97,099.05 paise and that of plaintiff no.2 for an amount of Rs. 7,97,69,724.20 paise, to which a reply was submitted by the plaintiffs on 28.10.2009. It is also stated in the plaint that on 23.4.2009 a proposal for one-time-settlement (OTS) was given by the plaintiffs and a revised OTS proposal was again given on 4.9.2009. It is also stated in the plaint that the properties shown at serial no. (iv) and (v) which were mortgaged with the bank, were agricultural properties and hence no security interest could be created on the said properties by virtue of the provisions of section 31(i) of the Act of 2002. It has also been stated that the property shown at serial no. (iii) was leased land of the Cantonment Board and hence no security interest could be created on the same also. The plaintiffs thus filed the suit with the following reliefs:- "(A) By a Decree of Declaration, it be declared that the various accounts of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 classified by the defendant bank as Non Performing Assets are Ex-Facie illegal, invalid, Arbitrary and in violation of guidelines framed by Reserve Bank of India. (B) By a Decree of Declaration, it be declared that notice dated 27.9.2009 served upon the plaintiffs under section 13(2) of SARFESI is illegal, without jurisdiction, and non est and the defendant bank is not competent to proceed further treating the said notice as illegal. (C) By a Decree of Declaration it be declared that the properties given at the foot of plaint vide Schedule I at Serial Nos. 3, 4, & 5 are not valid Security Interest and are un-enforceable against the plaintiffs. (D) By a Decree of Mandatory Injunction, the defendant bank be directed to accept the proposal of One Time Settlement given by the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 18 (Eighteen) Crores in settlement of entire liability of the plaintiffs against the defendant. (E) By a Decree of Prohibitory Injunction the defendant, their servants, agents, employees etc. be restrained from causing any interference, hindrance and obstruction in the business of the plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 in any manner whatsoever and further be restrained from taking over any assets of the plaintiffs as mentioned in Schedule I at the foot of the plaint. (F) Costs of the suit. (G) Any other relief or such other further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.";