P ROOPASUNDARI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the impugned judgment passed by the learned XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in A.S.No.364 of 2013 dated 10.2.2014, in and by which the first appellate Court, reversing the judgment of dismissal of the suit passed by the trial Court, has decreed the suit by allowing the appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants, contending heavily on the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the first appellate Court, argued before this Court that when the suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff/State Bank of India seeking a prayer for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,52,862.37p together with future interest at the rate of 11.0% per annum compounded at monthly rests from the date of plaint till the date of realisation along with payment of costs, a specific and explicit stand was taken by the appellants on the non-maintainability of the suit under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), which says that no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The trial Court, after accepting the case of the appellants on the non-maintainability of the suit, giving liberty to the respondent-Bank to proceed under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, dismissed the suit further holding that the respondent was not entitled to file the suit before the civil Court, as the same was not maintainable. That apart, delving into the merits of the issue in regard to the recovery of the balance amount, the trial Court also has decided that the respondent was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,27,862/-. In spite of the fact that a finding has been recorded by the trial Court with regard to the recovery of Rs.3,27,862/- from the appellants, by virtue of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, finding that the suit was not maintainable, dismissed the same.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.364 of 2013 by the respondent-Bank. But the first appellate Court, ignoring the admission made by one Mr.Balagopal, the officer of the Bank, who was examined as P.W.1, as to the repayment of the following amounts, namely, Rs.2,56,078/- as on 21.3.2012, another sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 18.3.2013 and one another sum of Rs.75,000/- on 17.4.2013 by the appellants, which comes to more than the loan amount, without there being any further memo of calculation filed by the respondent-Bank, the first appellate Court, reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court, heavily relying upon Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, has wrongly held that the financial institutions can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal if the debt due is more than Rs.10 lakhs and if the debt due is below Rs.10 lakhs, they have to seek the remedy before the civil Court. Therefore, the approach adopted by the trial Court that the suit was not maintainable, having been reversed by the first appellate Court, clearly shows that the matter needs to be examined by admitting the second appeal. Adding further, he has also stated that when admittedly the appellants borrowed a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- on 20.10.2004, they had repaid a sum of Rs.4,81,078/-. That itself indicates that the suit as claimed by the respondent to recover a sum of Rs.5,52,862/- at the rate of 11.0% interest per annum needs to be dismissed. But the first appellate Court, he pleaded, went against the specific and explicit provision barring the institution of civil suit for recovery of the amount against the appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree directing the appellants to pay the suit amount of Rs.3,27,862/- to the respondent with subsequent interest of 9% per annum for the above said amount from the date of plaint till the date of decree and again 6% interest per annum thereafter till the realisation of the entire money, is not in accordance with law, hence, the same is required to be interfered with.