STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. S.RAMESH NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants being the defendants in the suit, filed an application to reject the plaint in O.A.No.1031 of 2020 in C.S.No.715 of 2019 on the premise that the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in C.S.No.715 of 2019 lacks jurisdiction in lieu of the provisions under Sec. 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act") read with Sec. 18 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "RDDBFI Act)." The said application was dismissed by the learned single Judge. Assailing the order passed on 3/11/2020, the present Original Side Appeal has been filed by the appellants.

(2.) BRIEF FACTS :

(3.) Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants: The very suit itself is a counter blast and an after thought to negate the fruits of the order and the consequential recovery in O.A.No.344 of 2015. Sec. 25 of the RDDBFI Act provided for recovery of any asset pursuant to any order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, on 14/3/2019 and only thereafter, the respondents made the offer. The very sanctioning of the loan itself was through deceit by misrepresentation by the respondents. The factum of non performing asset of the accounts of the two companies and the respondents being the guarantors of the loan has been suppressed deliberately while obtaining a sanction. The proceedings were also initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Even at the time of passing an order, the suit proceeding which was initiated already was pending. The learned single Judge was placed with all the facts. The respondents have suppressed the material facts in filing the suit. The account of the respondents was closed and it was declared as non performing asset on 16/11/2019. It is not as if, the respondents are remediless as could be seen seeking a prayer in the pending proceedings in O.A.No.261 of 2020. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has rightly relied upon the following decisions.