2000 Supreme(Mad) 413
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Vee Cee Yes Granites, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
Central Bank of India - Respondents
Application No. 790 of 2000 in C.S. No. 369 of 1997
Decided On : 10 April 2000
Sec.10, Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to proceedings instituted in Special Tribunal under Special Act.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Secs.10, 4 and 9 -Recovery of Debts due to Banker and Financial Institutions Act (LI of 1993), Secs.3(1), 17 and 18 - Stay of subsequent suit - Bar of jurisdiction - Application by Bank before DRT for recovery of dues - Sec.10 would not apply unless Tribunal where subsequently instituted application pending considered to be civil cause or application considered to be suit.
Vee Cee Yes Granites, Chennai, the plaintiff/applicant has filed this petition under S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to stay the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Chennai.
The prayer is as follows :-
"I pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order the stay of all proceedings in O.A. No. 401 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry at Chennai pending disposal of the suit in C.S. No. 369 of 1997."
The brief facts leading to the filing of this application are as follows :-
"The plaintiff filed the suit before this Court on 23-4-1997 in C.S. No. 369 of 1997 against the defendants 1 to 6 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15, 03, 340/- due to the plaintiff under the export bill as well as for the loss suffered by it on account of the non-payment. The third defendant-Central Bank of India, Chennai, the respondent herein, filed written statement on 5-3-1998 stating that they are not vicariously liable and as such, they are not liable to pay any amount. In April, 1998, the Central Bank filed the application in O.A. No. 401 of 1998 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, against the plaintiff/applicant and guarantors and mortgagors for recovery of a sum of Rs. 21, 13, 647/- and for sale of the immovable properties which were mortgaged to the Bank. The plaintiff/applicant and others filed a counter-statement before the Tribunal in August, 1999. Thereafter, the plaintiff/applicant has filed this application under S. 10 of CPC on 16-11-1999 seeking for the stay of the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal pending disposal of the suit filed by the plaintiff/applicant."
The case of the plaintiff in the suit is as follows :-
" The plaintiff carries on the business of export of granites. On the orders being placed by the defendants 1 and 2, the parties in London, the plaintiff exported the polished granite monuments and shipped the Order No. 383 on 28-2-1994 on the assurance given by the second defendant that the bill would be honoured within 60 days from the date of receipt of the bill and shipment. On 28-2-1994, the plaintiff entrusted the export documents to the Central Bank, the third defendant with instructions that they be negotiated and the proceeds be credited to the account of the plaintiff maintained with the third defendant. However, on 30-3-1994, the plaintiff received message from the second defendant that if he fails to resolve the second defendant's outstanding problems by 31-3-1994, the second defendant would definitely advise the fourth defendant, Barclays Bank, U.K. to withhold the payment of the bill sent for collection. Subsequently, the fourth defendant, the Bank at London, the plaintiffs sub-agent parted with the documents of title to the subject goods without ensuring payment from the first defendant and the first defendant took delivery of the subject goods on 8-4-1994. Thus, the fourth defendant parted with the documents of title and the goods with-out realising the sale consideration. Several reminders had been sent to the first and second defendants. There was no response. On 24-6-1994 the Central Bank, the third defendant informed the plaintiff that the fourth defendant informed the third defendant that the bill sent for collection was unpaid, as the goods were reported to be (of) unacceptable quality. Then, the plaintiff addressed a letter to the third defendant calling upon to return the relevant document. There was no response. The notices were sent to the first and second defendants on 23-10-1995 demanding payment. In the reply dated 13-12-1995 sent by the first and second defendants, it is stated that the goods supplied were sub-standard and the client of the first defendant refused to pay the first defendant incurred losses exceeding 10, 000 sterling pounds. Under those circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit against the first four defendants for recovery of the amount of Rs. 4, 77, 9211/- towards the value of the bill, R