1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. These two notices of motion (Notices of Motion Nos.1206 of 2017 and 1207 of 2017) have been taken out in two different suits. There are three companion notices of motion (Notices of Motion Nos.323 of 2017, 1208 of 2017 and 377 of 2017), taken out in three other suits, which are not on board, but which involve the same controversy. These latter motions are mentioned, taken on board and called out by consent, and heard together with the two former motions.

3. All five suits seek specific performance of agreements for sale of flats, respectively, entered into between the Plaintiffs and M/s. Orbit Corporation Ltd. ('Orbit'), who is a developer in respect of certain property, in which these flats are situated. M/s. Axis Bank Ltd. ('Axis Bank') have been arraigned as a party Defendant in all five suits purportedly on the ground that there is a collusive mortgage between Orbit and Axis Bank by which they have sought to defeat the Plaintiffs’ rights. Various reliefs have been sought in these suits not only against Orbit but also against Axis Bank. These five notices of motion have been taken out by Axis Bank purportedly on the footing that the suits, insofar as Axis Bank is concerned, are barred by the provisions of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”).

4. The case of Axis Bank, in a nutshell, is that it has initiated proceedings under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and taken symbolic possession of the building in which these flats, which are the subject matter of these five suits, are situated. It is the case of Axis Bank that insofar as the suits against it are concerned, the questions raised in the suits qua it can be determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT') under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, if the Plaintiffs were to apply under that section, being aggrieved by any of the measures taken by Axis Bank under subsection (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that, accordingly, under the provisions of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the present suits are barred and the plaints are liable to be rejected as against Axis Bank under Rule 11(d) of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“Code”)

5. Before we consider the application of Axis Bank, the facts of the suits alleged by the respective Plaintiffs may be briefly noted :

SUIT NO. 8 OF 2017

6. This suit is filed by the Plaintiff inter alia praying for a decree for specific performance of her agreement for sale inter alia by completing construction of the two flats purchased by her in the project known as “Orbit Haven” described in the suit, in accordance with the agreement for sale executed by Orbit (Defendant No.1) in her favour, and handing over possession of the flats to her. She claims in the suit that as much as Orbit, Axis Bank (arraigned as Defendant No.15 in her suit) be directed to comply with all obligations under Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (for short “MOFA”) which are set out in prayer clause (a) of her suit. The suit agreement for sale is said to be reflected in the letter of confirmation of booking of the flat dated 16 April 2009 read with email dated 21 January 2015, under which she has agreed to purchase and acquire the two flats at a total consideration of Rs.12.45 crores. It is the case of the Plaintiff that she has paid from time to time various sums towards this purchase aggregating to about Rs.9.23 crores, the receipt of which has been duly acknowledged by Orbit. Some other purchasers of flats in the suit building have also been arraigned as defendants in this suit. Among these, some appear to have purchased flats vide registered agreements for sale, whilst others having agreed to do so under similar allotment letters. It is the grievance of the Plaintiff that in spite of various reminders on her part, Orbit has not entered into and registered any agreemen