JUDGMENT

M.L. Mehta, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction and in the alternative, recovery of Rs. 29,52,954.67 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Four and Sixty Seven Paise). The brief facts are that the plaintiff company Maharishi Solar Tech Pvt. Ltd. is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the manufacture, production, development, import/export etc. of all instruments, machines and appliances for use with solar energy and any other conventional energy. Defendants no. 1 to 5 are the bankers of the plaintiff company, and defendant no. 6 is the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC).

2. It is the plaintiff's case that a letter dated March 7, 2005 was issued to them by defendant no. 1 stating that the latter had marked a debit freeze with regard to A/c. No. 004605001120 amounting to the suit amount. It is alleged that defendant no. 6 had issued the Recovery Notice No. K/CO/CP2-2574-21-17499-90 dated March 7, 2005 to defendant no. 1 for recovering alleged dues of Rs. 68,80,200/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakh Eighty Thousand Two Hundred only) from the company named Maharishi Ayurved Products Ltd. (MAPL). The plaintiff alleges that defendant no. 1 has issued Pay Order No. 121910 dated March 7, 2005 for the suit amount from the plaintiff's account in favour of defendant no. 6 without seeking the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff also contends that it has no connection or relation with MAPL, though the registered office of the two companies is the same i.e. A-14, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. The plaintiff submits that both the companies are completely separate entities and do not have any common director, and hence the plaintiff cannot be made liable to pay the ESI dues of MAPL.

3. The plaintiff further submits that a dispute had arisen between defendant no. 6 and MAPL in the financial year 1998-99 regarding the recovery of Rs. 36,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs). The plaintiff further submits that MAPL has challenged the Recovery Notice issued against it by defendant no. 6, before competent authorities. The plaintiff has placed on record the relevant documents regarding the dispute between defendant no. 6 and MAPL and has also placed reliance on them to further demonstrate that the Recovery Notice issued against it pertains to MAPL, with which it has no concern or connection. The plaintiff also submits that on March 8, 2005 it issued letters to all of its bankers i.e. defendants no. 1 to 5, directing them not to entertain any recovery notice issued by defendant no. 6. The plaintiff submits that it had also specifically requested defendant no. 1 bank to stop the encashment of Pay Order No. 121910 for the suit amount which was issued in favour of defendant no. 6 vide a letter dated March 7, 2005, and further requested them to defreeze its account.

4. The plaintiff further contends that, as per the provisions of the ESI Act, the mandatory requirement of issuing Prohibitory Notice u/s. 45G has not been complied with by defendant no.6 while issuing prohibitory notices to the defendants 1 to 5. And that as per Sec. 45C of the said Act, the alleged recovery can be made only from a factory or an establishment, or as the case may be, the principal or immediate employer of the company/establishment/factory who is at default.

5. In response, the contesting defendant i.e. defendant no. 6 has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant suit, in light of Sec. 75 of the ESI Act, which provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide a dispute between the principal employer and the corporation, in respect of the contribution payable by the principal employer. The contesting defendant no.6 further submits that the Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Overseas Branch, GK - II, New Delhi, i.e. defendant no. 4, informed it that an undertaking