SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 1299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. and Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
M/s. Corium Trading Limited and Ors. - Respondent
C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 842 to 844 of 2015 and C.R.P. (PD) Nos. 4081 to 4083 of 2015 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 1 of 2015 (6 M.Ps.)
Decided On : 22-01-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. V. Bhiman, M/s. Sampathkumar Associates
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Ranganatha Reddy, M/s. King & Patridge

Headnote:

Civil Laws – Mandatory injunction – Civil Revision Petition Nos. 842 to 844 of 2015 are filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.Nos.3879 of 2013, 5530 of 2014 and 6036 of 2014 respectively, on the file of VI Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai. –Civil Revision Petition Nos.4081 to 4083 of 2015 are filed against the fair and decretal order dated 06.08.2015 made in I.A.Nos.8219 to 8221 of 2015 in O.S.No.3879 of 2013 respectively, on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. – Issues are inter linked and the parties are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order. – For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.842 to 844 of 2015 are referred to petitioners Bank and petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.4081 to 4083 of 2015 is referred to respondent company. – Respondent in C.R.P.Nos.842 and 843 of 2015 is the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.3879 of 2013 and 5530 of 2014, the respondent in C.R.P.No.844 of 2015 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.6036 of 2014 and the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.842 to 844 of 2015/respondents in C.R.P.Nos.4081 to 4083 of 2015 are the defendants in all the three suits in O.S.Nos.3879 of 2013, 5530 of 2014 and 6036 of 2014. – The respondent in C.R.P.No.844 of 2015, who is the Managing Director of the Company viz., M/S. Corium Trading Limited/respondent in C.R.P.Nos.842 and 843 of 2015, filed suit in O.S.No.6036 of 2014 in his individual capacity. – Held, Counsel for the petitioners Bank contended that the petitioners Bank already filed O.A.No.114 of 2015 against the respondent company in C.R.P.Nos.842 and 843 of 2015, its director and others before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. – After contest, the Debt Recovery Tribunal by order dated 31.07.2017 allowed the said application holding that the petitioners Bank is entitled to recover the amount with interest from the defendants therein/respondent company and others and also ordered to issue recovery certificate to the petitioners Bank. – As far as the jewel loan is concerned, the petitioners Bank filed O.A.No.553 of 2016 against Jacob Cherian, respondent in C.R.P.No.844 of 2015 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. – After contest, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, by order dated 12.12.2017 allowed the said application. – According to the learned counsel for the petitioners Bank, they brought the property of the respondent company in public auction and recovered the entire amount. – In view of the fact that the petitioners Bank have exercised their statutory right and obtained orders in Debt Recovery Tribunal, the suits filed by the respondent company cannot be continued. – C.R.P. Allowed

ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition Nos. 842 to 844 of 2015 are filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.Nos.3879 of 2013, 5530 of 2014 and 6036 of 2014 respectively, on the file of VI Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai.

The Civil Revision Petition Nos.4081 to 4083 of 2015 are filed against the fair and decretal order dated 06.08.2015 made in I.A.Nos.8219 to 8221 of 2015 in O.S.No.3879 of 2013 respectively, on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. In all the six Civil Revision Petitions, the issues are inter linked and the parties are one and the same and hence, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.842 to 844 of 2015 are referred to 'petitioners Bank' and petitioner in C.R.P.Nos.4081 to 4083 of 2015 is referred to 'respondent company'.

3. The respondent in C.R.P.Nos.842 and 843 of 2015 is the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.3879 of 2013 and 5530 of 2014, the respondent in C.R.P.No.844 of 2015 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.6036 of 2014 and the petitioners in C.R.P.Nos.842 to 844 of 2015/respondents in C.R.P.Nos.4081 to 4083 of 2015 are the defendants in all the three suits in O.S.Nos.3879 of 2013, 5530 of 2014 and 6036 of 2014. The respondent in C.R.P.No.844 of 2015, who is the Managing Director of the Company viz., M/S. Corium Trading Limited/respondent in C.R.P.Nos.842 and 843 of 2015, filed suit in O.S.No.6036 of 2014 in his individual capacity.

4. The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioners Bank at the request of the respondent company in C.R.P.Nos.842 and 843 of 2015 granted loan of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on the security of immovable property belonging to Santhamma Ittycheria, mother of Jacob Cherian (respondent in C.R.P.No.844 of 2015), who is the Managing Director of the respondent company and personal guarantees of Jacob Cherian, Reena Jacob, A.Antonly John, Sakila Balaguru and Santhamma Ittycheria. Subsequently, the said loan was enhanced to Rs.3 Crores in March 2013 on the additional security of the property belonging to the Partnership Firm viz. M/s. Amity Trading Company, of which Sakila Balaguru, A.Antony John and Reena Jacob are partners and personal guarantees of Jacob Cherian, Reena Jacob, A.Antony John, Sakila Balaguru and Santhamma Ittycheria and the immovable property belonging to M/S. Amity Trading Company, in which, Mrs. Sakila Balaguru, A.Antony John and Reena Jacob are partners.

(ii) On 12.04.2013, Antony John and Sakila Balaguru revoked their guarantee and sought for return of title deeds. By letter dated 18.04.2013, they objected to handing over the title deeds to Mr. Jacob Cherian (respondent in C.R.P.No.844 of 2015 and the Managing Director of the respondent company in C.R.P.Nos.842 and 843 of 2015). In view of the same, the petitioners Bank could not allow the operation of the account as the account cannot continue without the guarantee. Therefore, the petitioners Bank by letter dated 23.04.2013 recalled the loan granted to the respondent company. The respondent company by letter dated 15.05.2013 informed the petitioners Bank that they are taking steps to regularise the account.

(iii) After such letter, the respondent company filed two suits in O.S.Nos.3879 of 2013 and 5530 of 2014 on the file of the VI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, for the following relief’s :

O.S.No.3879 of 2013

“a. Declaration declaring that the letter issued by the 1st Defendant dated 23.04.2013 is illegal and null and void.

b. Mandatory injunction directing the Defendants 1 to 3 to release all the Title Deeds of the property situated at 150 and 151, Valayapathy Street, Ganesh Nagar, Selaiyur, Chennai -73, belong to Mrs. Santhamma Ittycheria, to the Plaintiff upon executing a fresh guarantee by the new board of directors and partners of the reconstituted Amity Trading Company pertaining to the C.C. Account No. 273 2661992 710501.

c. Mandatory injunction directing the Defendants 1 to 3 to allow normal operations to continue with immediate effect.

d. Pass perm
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top