JUDGMENT

Common Order:

The primary issue, that arises for consideration in these applications, is whether a borrower is entitled to independently file a civil suit against the bank and whether such a suit will be hit by Sections 18 and 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to “DRT Act”).

2. Section 18 of the DRT Act is a provision, which provides for a statutory bar of any other court or other authority from exercising jurisdiction in respect of matters specified under Section 17 of the DRT Act. Section 34 of the DRT Act stipulates that provisions of the DRT Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than DRT Act.

3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking for the following reliefs:-

(a) To declare that the unilateral cancellation of the Negotiated Settlement dated 29.12.2021 by the defendants 1 and 2 is illegal, void ab initio and non-est.

(b) To declare that the Negotiated Settlement dated 29.12.2021 is valid and binding on the defendants 1 and 2.