PRABIR CHATTERJEE Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant bank has applied for a permanent stay of the suit and, in the alternative, for this suit to be transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal where the first defendant has instituted recovery proceedings against the plaintiff as the principal debtor and the other defendants as guarantors under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The bank says that the alleged cause of action of the plaintiff in this suit is so inextricably connected to the bank's claim made before the tribunal that it would be embarrassing if the two actions proceeded in the two fora. The bank suggests that in view of the mandatory provisions of the said Act of 1993 the civil court must relinquish its authority in favour of the tribunal in matters relating to claims and counter-claims between banks and their constituents.

(2.) Some fundamental issues have arisen, not the least of them being the constitutional issue as to the erosion of the inalienable obligation of the judiciary in the matters relating to adjudication. For, whatever law may be enacted and whatever statute may be cited, if there is a doubt it has to be resolved with the suprema lex in mind and the scheme of state functioning ordained by it. That is, with respect, not to suggest that matters already settled by higher authorities can be revisited at this base level, but the unquestionable primacy of the wing of state in matters concerning the mechanism of adjudication has to be preserved under the constitutional scheme of things.

(3.) It is with such preface that the present request of this private bank has to be seen as it asserts that the civil court must yield to a tribunal since the principal issue to be adjudicated is as to whether there is a banker-constituent relationship between the first defendant and the plaintiff and since this suit will necessarily involve the assessment as to whether any debt is due from the plaintiff to the bank within the meaning of the word "debt" in the said Act of 1993. As in the usual course and notwithstanding the exalted status that the first defendant bank claims, it is the plaint which has to be subjected to scrutiny. It is the plaint that defines the contours of this action and holds the key in the matter of assessment of the propriety of the unexceptional plea of the applying defendant. This suit was launched against the bank early in the year 2008 and the plaint therein was amended shortly thereafter to add the other defendants and to include some additional facts and reliefs. The suit was instituted with leave under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Post-amendment, the reliefs claimed in the plaint are as follows: