INDIAN BANK Vs. NARASIMHAN ASHOK SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Indian Bank, Singapore Branch, had filed a suit before the Court at Singapore and after filing of the suit, principal borrowers namely the company became insolvent and by operation of law, the said suit came to be discontinued and the company having been declared as insolvent, the appellant Bank had filed a claim before the Official Liquidator and their claim was accepted. That, thereafter, the appellant had some information that the guarantors are having some properties in India, and they would be able to satisfy the debt due to the appellant, filed the OA before the DRT 2 at Chennai and the said OA came to be dismissed by order dated 8.6.2005. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE fact that the appellant had already taken out the recovery proceedings by filing a suit before the Singapore Court, is not in dispute. After the legal action taken before the Singapore Court, the first defendant company went into liquidation and it was declared as insolvent, is also not in dispute. Pursuant to the same, the appellant also filed a claim petition. After having exhausted all the remedies available under law, the appellant had chosen to file the OA before the DRT, which was dismissed on two grounds:

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the appellate is trying to explain the issue by relying upon the case of Rameshwarlal v. Municipal Council, Tonk and Ors. , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that, "Normally for application of Section 14, the Court dealing with the matter in the first instance, which is the subject of the issue in the later case, must be found to have lack of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature to entertain the matter. However, since the High Court expressly declined to grant relief relegating the petitioner to a suit in the Civil Court, the petitioner cannot be left remediless. Accordingly, the time taken in prosecuting the proceeding before the High Court and this Court, obviously pursued diligently and bonafide, needs to be excluded." The facts and circumstances of that case are totally different and, therefore, that decision is not applicable to the case on hand.