Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
S.V. Subramaniam
Versus
M/s.Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, rep. by its Director Mr.K.Viswanath
O.S.A.Nos.211 of 2007 to 214 of 2007
Decided on : 22-01-2008
Fraud - Land Dispute - Section 17, Section 18, Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - The suit is not maintainable under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as it is not a 'suit for land' - The suit is not barred by Section 18 of the 1993 Act as the plaintiff is not a party before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and has alleged fraud played by the parties to obtain orders from the DRT - The plaintiff cannot prefer any appeal under Section 20 of the 1993 Act as the orders were passed by the Tribunal with the consent of the parties
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that certain orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) were null and void due to fraud, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the property. The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and was barred by Section 18 of the 1993 Act. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff could have preferred an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 20 of the 1993 Act.
Finding of the Court:
The suit is not maintainable under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as it is not a 'suit for land'. The suit is not barred by Section 18 of the 1993 Act as the plaintiff is not a party before the DRT and has alleged fraud played by the parties to obtain orders from the DRT. The plaintiff cannot prefer any appeal under Section 20 of the 1993 Act as the orders were passed by the Tribunal with the consent of the parties.
Issues: The main issues were the maintainability of the suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and the bar of jurisdiction under Section 18 of the 1993 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The suit is not maintainable under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent as it is not a 'suit for land'. The suit is not barred by Section 18 of the 1993 Act as the plaintiff is not a party before the DRT and has alleged fraud played by the parties to obtain orders from the DRT. The plaintiff cannot prefer any appeal under Section 20 of the 1993 Act as the orders were passed by the Tribunal with the consent of the parties.
Final Decision: The appeals are dismissed, and there shall be no order as to costs.
S.J. Mukhopadhaya,J
As all these appeals have been preferred by the common appellant (S.V.Subramaniam) (who is the fourth defendant in the suit in C.S.No.517 of 2007) against the common order dated 17. 2007 passed in Application Nos.4144, 4145 and 4349 of 2007 and O.A.No.729 of 2007 in C.S.No.517 of 2007, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The suit in C.S.No.517 of 2007 was preferred by the plaintiff (the first respondent herein) for the following relief:
(a) Declaration that order dated 8. 2006 modified by order dated 30.8.2006 and 38. 2006 in I.A.No.336 of 2006 in T.A.No.1 of 2004 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs property described in Schedule A.
.(b) Declaration that Sale Certificate No.53 of 2006, dated 38. 2006 issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs property described in Schedule A and
.(c) Permanent injunction restraining the fourth defendant, his men, agents, servants or assigns, from in any manner directly or indirectly acting upon the Sale Certificate No.53 of 2006, dated 38. 2006 issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, and dealing with the said property described in Schedule A, in any manner whatsoever.
3. In the aforesaid suit, the first respondent-plaintiff preferred the following applications:
.(i) Original Application No.729 of 2007: preferred for interim injunction restraining the fourth respondent/fourth defendant, his men, agents, servants or assigns, from in any manner directly or indirectly acting upon the Sale Certificate No.53 of 2006, dated 38. 2006 issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, developing and dealing with the property described in Schedule A to the Judges Summons in the Application, in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.
.(ii) Application No.4144 of 2007 : preferred for stay of the operation of the Sale Certificate No.53 of 2006, dated 38. 2006, issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-2, Chennai, pertaining to Schedule A property, mentioned in Judges Summons to the Application, pending disposal of the suit.
(iii) Application No.4145 of 2007 : preferred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for grant of leave for reserving its right to claim further consequential relief.
A Separate application in Original Application No.4349 of 2007 was preferred by the appellant/fourth defendant under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC to reject the plaint, as the Court having no jurisdiction.
All the four applications were heard together and by the impugned common order dated 17. 2007, the learned single Judge while allowing the applications in Appln.Nos.4144 and 4145 of 2007 and O.A.No.729 of 2007. preferred by the first respondent-plaintiff, rejected the applications in Appln.No.4349 of 2007 preferred by the appellant-fourth defendant, which has given rise to the present four Original Side Appeals.
4. Before noticing the rival contentions and the issues involved in the present appeals, it is desirable to notice the relevant facts as mentioned hereunder:
(i) One M/s.M.G.M.Brothers, a Partnership firm, on 22. 1964, purchased the property under Document No.1457/64, S.R.O. Bangalore North, land in S.No.43/3, Hebbal Village (Kasabu), Bangalore Taluk, measuring 2 acres 3-1/2 guntas having boundary: East: Bellary Road, West: K.Nanjappan lands in S.No.43/2, North: small part of land measuring 3.5 guntas sold to Nanjappa and M.G.Brothers jointly, and South: Military Dairy Farms in S.No.42. According to the first respondent-plaintiff, on the same date, i.e. on 22. 1964, another small part of the land measuring 3.5 guntas in S.No.43/3, Hebbal Village (Kasabu), Bangalore Taluk, was also sold, which has been shown in the North side of the other sale deed dated 22. 1964, as earlier referred to.
.(ii) On 12. 1987, an agreement was reached between M/s.M.G.Brothers, represented by partner and power agent of other par
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
