- (1.) The reliefs claimed in the suit have been reproduced at paragraph 37 of the petition: "(a) The letter notice dated March 24, 2009 being Annexure "I" hereof be adjudged null and void and be delivered up and cancelled; (b) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from acting contrary to or in any manner inconsistent with terms of the agreement between the parties as recorded in paragraph 16 above and from effecting recoveries in a manner contrary thereto; (c) Alternatively decree for determination of the amounts due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent and a decree be made for such sum as may be found upon enquiry, in favour of the respondent; (d) Receiver; (e) Injunction; (f) Attachment; (g) Costs; (h) Such further and/or other relief or reliefs".
(2.) By a letter dated February 28, 2009 the defendant bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The bank put the plaintiff on notice in terms of Section 13(2) of the Act that the constituent was not to transfer by way of sale, lease or otherwise the secured assets detailed in schedule 'C' to the notice without obtaining the written consent of the bank. The bank's claim was in excess of Rs. 20 crore.
(3.) On March 6, 2009 the plaintiff submitted a letter to the bank in response to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. The plaintiff proposed restructuring of the debt. Following the receipt of such proposal the bank responded on March 24, 2009 dealing with the merits of the plaintiff's proposal and announcing that it was not viable. The bank duly discharged its obligation under Section 13(3A) in responding to the restructuring proposal.;