The court held that claims regarding compliance with OTS schemes do not bar a legal suit and that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action warranting adjudication under the RDB Act.

ORDER :

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.

The plaintiff had availed of credit facilities from the defendant bank. It is common ground between the parties that the account became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 31.12.2008. The defendant instituted proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Chennai (DRT- I) under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (the RDB Act) on 23.01.2015 for recovery of a sum of Rs.21.76 crores as on 21.01.2015 with further interest from the date of the original application. The said original application was heard and an order dated 30.07.2018 was issued holding that a sum of Rs.9,63,29,570/- was due and payable as on 30.07.2018 and directing that interest be applied on the said sum. The defendant herein was directed to file a fresh statement of account by applying interest at 11% per annum from the date of filing of the original application till the date of realisation.

2. An application was filed by the plaintiff herein alleging non- compliance with the direction to submit the statement of account. The said application was disposed of by order dated 14.09.2020 directing the bank to furnish copies of the statement of accounts. Upon receipt of the statement of accounts pursuant to the said order, the plaintiff was dissatisfied with such statement and consider the same to be erroneous and inflated. Therefore, another miscellaneous application (MA.No.26 of 2020) was filed. This application was disposed of by order dated 29.07.2021 taking note of the remittance made in terms of an OTS scheme by the plaintiff. The said order was carried in appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). A conditional order was passed by the DRAT in the said appeal. It appears that such conditional order was not complied with by the plaintiff. The present suit was instituted in the above mentioned facts and circumstances seeking multiple remedies, including declaration that the reckoning of the interest after the NPA date is invalid and illegal and a declaration that the ledger outstanding amount of Rs.425.44 crores is in violation of the SBI OTS 2017 scheme. The plaintiff has also prayed for consequential monetary remedies.

3. After entering appearance in the suit, the defendant bank has applied for rejection of the plaint.

4. The contentions of Mr.M.L.Ganesh in support of the application to reject the plaint may be summarised as under:

(i) The suit is barred under Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the Commercial Courts Act) read with Section 18 of the RDB Act.

(ii) The plaintiff seeks enforcement of the SBI OTS 2017 scheme. Neither a suit nor a writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of an OTS scheme, which is contractual. The judgment of the Supreme Court in The Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor & others v. Meenal Agarwal & others, Comp.A.No.7411 of 2021, dated 15.12.2021 is relied upon in support of this contention.

(iii) Being dissatisfied with the statement of account filed by the defendant bank, the plaintiff filed M.A.No.26 of 2020 before the DRT-I. The request for relief was declined by order dated 29.07.2021. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal before the DRAT and failed to comply with the conditional order issued therein. In those circumstances, the plaintiff cannot re-agitate the matter before this Court.

(iv) The plaintiff did not avail of the SBI OTS scheme 2017 and availed of the SBI OTS scheme 2018. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek relief in respect of the SBI OTS scheme 2017.

(v) After availing of the SBI OTS scheme 2018 and making payments in terms thereof, the defendant bank filed a full satisfaction memo and proceedings in O.A.No.22 of 2015 were terminated