ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. IFCI LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of defendant's application (I.A.2217/97), filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code of Civil Procedure'). The facts relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned application, briefly stated, are that M/s Anant Raj Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the plaintiff') have filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants, named above, with the prayer that a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, declaring that the plaintiff has paid the entire dues of the defendants in terms of one time settlement dated the 31st March, 1995 and that nothing remains due to be paid to any of the defendants except the uncrystalised portion of foreign currency loan to defendant No.1, be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. It is also prayed that a decree for mandatory injunction be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to release their respective charges on the assets of the plaintiff and also to release the personal guarantees of the Directors given in terms of the respective loan agreements with the defendants. The plaintiff in the above said suit has also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, employees, officers etc., from, in any manner, revoking the one time settlement, made between the parties, vide defendant No.1's letter dated 31st March, 1995 and from in any manner interfering in the working of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also prayed for the costs of the proceedings.

(2.) Notice of the above mentioned application was given to the plaintiff who has filed a detailed reply taking preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the application. On merits it is stated that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the present case as the present suit is not a suit filed by a bank or a financial institution against its debtors but a suit filed against the bank/financial institutions. It has been stated in the reply filed on behalf of the plaintiff that the application, filed by the defendants, be dismissed with costs.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. The only question, requiring consideration, in so far as the present application is concerned, is as to whether the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit stands ousted in view of the legal bar contained in section 18 of the Act. In other words, the entire controversy in the present proceedings relate to the interpretation, intent, meaning and scope of section 18 and section 17 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act reads as under:-