R. MAHADEVAN, J.

OSA.No.4 of 2010 is filed against the order and decreetal order, dated 30.09.2008, made in A.No.339 of 2008 in CS.No.765 of 2007 by the learned single judge of this Court, dismissing the application. OSA.No.317 of 2011 is filed against the order and decreetal order, dated 23.12.2010, made in OA.No.1034 of 2007 in CS.No.765 of 2007 by the learned single judge of this Court.

2. The appellant herein in both the appeals is the 1st defendant in the above suit and the applicant in A.No.339 of 2008 filed to reject the plaint, contending that the suit is not maintainable. The appellant was the 1st respondent in OA.No.1034/2007 filed by the plaintiff. The said application was filed to restrain the appellant, its men or agent or any one claiming under them from any manner seeking to reflect the redemption of the debentures in the books of accounts. As against the dismissal of the application to reject the plaint, OSA.No.4/2010 has been filed. As against the decreetal order, allowing OA.No.1034/2007, the OSA.No.317/2011 has been filed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their rank in the suit.

4. The suit has been filed to pass a judgment and decree:-

(a) declaring that the orders of the 5th defendant, dated 13.10.2004 and 12.07.2005 in DRC.No.154/2003 as null, void, fraudulent and without jurisdiction;

(b) consequently declaring the issuance of Rs. 6,25,000 duplicate debentures by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant and redemption of the same as wholly illegal void, non-est and being fraudulent;

(c) issuing a mandatory injunction, directing the 1st defendant to redeem the schedule mentioned debentures with the 1st and 2nd defendants being jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.6,25,00,000/- being the face value of the debentures together with interest at the rate of 11% per annum compounded annually from the date of issuance of the debentures to the date of payment in terms of the agreement, dated 01.08.2002 pursuant to which the schedule mentioned debentures were issued;

(d) directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit.

In short, the suit has been filed to nullify the orders passed under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (herein after referred to as the RDDB Act) on the ground of collusion between the defendants 1, 2 and 3.

5. The case of the plaintiff in short is as follows:-

The 3rd defendant was allotted Rs. 15,00,000/- debentures by the 1st defendant in consideration of assignment of certain rights to them based on an agreement, dated 01.08.2002. As per the terms of the agreement, the 1st defendant had to pay a sum of Rs 15,00,00,000/- on the expiry of 5 years with interest @11% per annum. The original debenture certificates were also in the custody of the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff had made some advance payment to the 3rd defendant in April 2003 and in consideration thereof, the 3rd defendant sold Rs. 6,25,000 debentures to the plaintiff, who adjusted Rs 5,62,20,000/- and raised an invoice dated 30.06.2003 for the transaction. The plaintiff also passed a board resolution reflecting the intention to purchase the debentures. The original debentures covered under 13 certificates were handed over to the plaintiff. Surprisingly, the case of the plaintiff is that though they purchased the debentures, they neither transferred the same to their name nor demanded interest. Subsequently, in April 2006, the plaintiff sought to sell Rs. 5,00,000 non-convertible debentures to one Mercury Fund Management Company Limited to raise funds. However, when the said company approached the 1st defendant for transferring the debentures, the transfer documents were returned with a letter informing about the impugned orders dated 13.10.2004 and 12.07.2005 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai in a proceedings initiated by the 2nd defendant bank against the 3rd defendant. The above orders have been passed in DRC.No.154/2003, wherein the debentures of the 1st defen