KBM GEMS AND JEWELLERS PVT LTD Vs. PNB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the defendant under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. The accompanying plaint has been filed by the plaintiff pointing out that the plaintiff has been availing of numerous credit facilities offered by the defendant Bank since May 2009. On 26.05.2009, it is stated that the defendant sanctioned credit facilities in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 17.5 crores against collateral comprising of six immovable properties. On 15.10.2009, it is stated that the sanction limit of the plaintiff was enhanced to Rs. 33.5 crores without insisting on any additional collaterals. Thereafter, in March 2011, the defendant suddenly without any provocation or justification refused to negotiate any export bills or other requests for credit facilities by the plaintiff Company. It is stated that this resulted in a sudden and serious breakdown of commercial operations. It is stated that the defendant due to its negligence has landed the plaintiff in severe financial distress. Hence, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration and recovery of money.

(2.) On 14.5.2013, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff had stated that the present Suit qua reliefs other than relief stated in prayer (b) and (e) of the prayer clause of the plaint would not be maintainable in view of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the fact that the plaintiff has also taken recourse to Section 17 of the said Act.

(3.) The present application is filed by the defendant bank stating that the relief sought in the present Suit is barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, which debars jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain any Civil Suit in respect of any manner in which the Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered under this Act to determine. It is further stated that even under provisions of Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 this Court would have no jurisdiction.