- (1.) These two appeals were heard analogously, as similar question of law is involved in these two appeals and by a composite order, the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of two applications, being G.A. No. 4171 of 2000 and G.A. No. 4206 of 2000 by transferring the two suits filed by the Appellants before us, being C.S. No. 77 of 1998 and C.S. No. 129 of 1999 with a direction that the plaints should be taken off the file with liberty to the Plaintiffs to place those before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) within three months.
(2.) Being dissatisfied, the Plaintiffs have preferred these two appeals, being A.P.O. No. 488 of 2002 and A.P.O. No. 489 of 2002.
(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of these appeals may be summed up thus: a) On 6th March, 1998, the Appellants filed a suit being C.S. No. 77 of 1998 in the Original Side of this Court against the bank claiming various relief's as detailed below: i) Decree for sale of shares mentioned in paragraph 11 above and payment of such sale proceeds to the Plaintiff No. 1; ii) A decree for accounts as claimed in paragraph 29 and an appropriate decree for payment of money upon such enquiry; iii) Mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to return the documents mentioned in paragraphs 6 & 12 to the Plaintiff; iv) An enquiry into the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and a decree for such sum as may be found due upon such enquiry; v) Interest, interim and further; vi) Receiver; vii) Injunction viii)Costs; ix) Such further relief or relief's. b) Subsequently on 9th March, 1999, another suit being C.S. No. 129 of 1999 was filed by the Appellants against the selfsame bank and thereby claiming the following relief's: i) A declaration that the purported sale of 4,98,000 shares of BFL Software pledged by the Plaintiff and of other pledged shares mentioned in Annexure 'I' were and are void; ii) A decree directing the Defendant to unconditionally return the shares pledged with it by the Plaintiff in respect of the said overdraft account, particulars whereof are set out in Annexure "D", hereto; in default a decree be passed, against the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 48,95,08,757.45 representing the market price of the said shares on the date of the Defendant's refusal to the return the said shares on February 17, 1999. Alternatively, an enquiry be made to determine the market value of the said shares or with reference to the such other date as this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper; and a decree be passed for the value of the shares as determined by this Hon'ble Court; iii) Declaration that no sum is payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in respect of the said term loan account dated July 27, 1994 and the said overdraft account dated September 19, 1995 and that the Defendant is not entitled to a decree for the sum of Rs. 8,62,41,973.37 or any part thereof against the Plaintiff in respect of the said two accounts; iv) In the alternative, an enquiry be made into and accounts be taken of the dealings and transactions between the parties relating to the term loan account dated July 27, 1994; and over draft account dated September 19, 1995 for determination of the amount, if any to be lawfully payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and a decree for redemption in favor of the Plaintiff be passed against the Defendant directing the Defendant to return the title deeds mentioned in Annexure "B" and the pledged shares mentioned in Annexure "D" upon/or against payment by the Plaintiff of the amount lawfully adjudged to be due to the Defendant in respect of the said two accounts; v) Injunction; vi) Receiver; vii) Costs; viii) Further or other relief's. c) Prior to the filing of the aforesaid two suits, the bank approached the DRT on 21st November, 2007 for issue of certificate against the Appellants for a sum of Rs. 8,62,41,973.36p. on the allegation that the Appellants after taking loan from the bank failed to repay the amount. d) The Appellants entered appearance in the proceedings before the DRT on 4th March, 1999 and filed their written statement on 1st November, 2000. e) In the two suits filed by the Appellant in the Original Side of this Court, the bank filed two applications being G.A. No. 4171 of 2000 and G.A. No. 4206 of 2000, thereby praying for rejection of both the plaints and/or stay of all further proceedings in respect of both the suits in view of the provisions contained in Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act). f) In those two applications for transfer, the contention put forward by the Defendant-bank was that it would appear from the averments made in the plaint that the suit was barred by the law for the time being in force and this High Court did not have any jurisdiction to deal with the subject-matter of the suit as the same was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DRT and as such, the suit was barred by the provisions of the Act. It was further contended that the Plaintiffs did not have any cause of action against the bank and the plaints filed in the suits did not disclose any cause of action. It was further contended that after the amendment of the Act came into effect from 17th January, 2000, the claims of the Plaintiffs had to be decided by the DRT and the DRT had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suits. g) The aforesaid application was contested by the Appellants before the learned Single Judge thereby contending that the suits filed by the Appellants before this Court were quite maintainable and the provisions contained in Act did not take away the right of a borrower to file a suit before Civil Court against the Bank or the financial institutions. h) The learned Single Judge by the order impugned herein came to the conclusion that the claims made by the Plaintiffs in the two suits against the Defendant-bank came within the purview of Sub-sections (8) to (11) of Section 19 of the Act and therefore, the plea for declaration in relation to the damages claimed in the suit was nothing but of the nature of set off. The learned Single Judge consequently held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suits and the prayers made in the plaints were really in the nature of either counter-claim or set off and therefore, after the creation of the DRT, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been excluded in respect of the counter-claim against the claim of the bank. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the suits field by the Plaintiffs were not entertainable before this Court and it would be proper to direct the Plaintiffs that the plaints field in this Court should be taken off the file and the Plaintiffs would be at liberty to place the same before the DRT within three months.;