Sanjib Banerjee,J. - (1.) The most startling feature of this matter is the cavalier manner in which the principal legal issue has been approached on both sides. The bank, in its usual recklessness, has referred to only one judgment which is clearly distinguishable on facts and another which has been subsequently held to be bad law. The plaintiff has carried only one judgment of the Supreme Court for the proposition that a suit of the present kind cannot be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), though there is no prayer for transfer in this case and there have been several authoritative pronouncements in recent lines on the maintainability of a suit by a constituent against a bank.
(2.) The bank has applied for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it has lodged a claim under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 after this suit was instituted and it had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prior to the present suit being lodged.
(3.) It is necessary first to see the nature of the suit before noticing, in particular, the reliefs claimed therein. The suit is clearly divisible in two parts: the more assertive part of the suit refers to the plaintiff-constituent's account being wrongfully debited to the tune of about Rs.9.66 crore by the defendant bank sometime in March, 2012; and, the other aspect being the failure by the bank to adhere to the recommendations made by the agencies engaged by the bank to restructure the debt of the plaintiff. Before the factual aspect is noticed in somewhat greater detail in the context of the question that falls for consideration, the anomaly in the two parts to the plaint should not be missed. The first part of the claim is that a debit entry was wrongfully made by the bank and the second part is that, notwithstanding the perceived erroneous entry, the plaintiff's debt ought to be restructured by the bank. If the very basis of the claim is erroneous, it begs the question as to why the restructuring is being insisted upon. However, that may have to do with the fact that the money debited from the plaintiff's account may have been credited to a sister concern; but such aspect of the matter may also not be relevant for the present consideration.;