Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2054
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
JAYANT BANERJI, J.
Kajal Goel – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India and Ors. – Respondents
Second Appeal No. 1171 of 2017
Decided On : 19-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Awadhesh Kumar Singh and Abhai Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Satish Chaturvedi
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Jurisdiction – Second Appeal – When allowed – Plaintiff complained to the officers of the State Bank of India about the guarantee and security taken against the guidelines of the PMEGP scheme several times, and requested to return the documents of the guarantor's property which kept as security, but no officer of the bank either considered any complaint of the plaintiff and neither replied satisfactorily – Appeal – Held, Non-specific pleadings in the plaint of the instant case do not disclose fraud – Hence, for considering the bar of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, factual analysis after consideration of issues on the basis of evidence was not required in present case – Therefore, courts below were justified in considering the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue – Courts below did not error in deciding the preliminary issue of the bar of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act only on the basis of law – With regard to the second question of law, in view of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, it is held that the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments without investigating the veracity of the documents submitted by the respondents as evidence before dismissing the suit – This second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff complained to the officers of the State Bank of India about the guarantee and security taken against the guidelines of the PMEGP scheme several times, and requested to return the documents of the guarantor's property Plot No. D-504 Indraprastha Loni, Ghaziabad kept as security, but no officer of the bank either considered any complaint of the plaintiff and neither replied satisfactorily.
Findings of the case:
Non-specific pleadings in the plaint of the instant case do not disclose fraud – Hence, for considering the bar of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, factual analysis after consideration of issues on the basis of evidence was not required in present case – Therefore, courts below were justified in considering the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue – Courts below did not error in deciding the preliminary issue of the bar of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act only on the basis of law – With regard to the second question of law, in view of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, it is held that the courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments without investigating the veracity of the documents submitted by the respondents as evidence before dismissing the suit – This second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Result: Appeal dismissed
ORDER :
Jayant Banerji, J.
1. The plaintiff-appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 26.9.2017 and 4.10.2017 respectively passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad in Civil Appeal No. 87 of 2017 (Smt. Kajal Goel Vs. State Bank of India and another) as well as the judgment and decree dated 27.5.2017 and 3.7.2017 respectively passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Original Suit No. 2803 of 2013 (Smt. Kajal Goel Vs. State Bank of India and another).
2. This appeal was admitted on 19.7.2018 on the following substantial question of law:
"1. Whether courts below erred in deciding the preliminary issue only on the basis of law and not on the facts and ignored correct application of the law as enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh B. Desai Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta?
2. Whether courts below misapplied the correct application of law by refusing to investigate the veracity of documents submitted by respondent as evidence before dismissing the suit?"
3. Heard Shri Amit Goel, the power of Attorney Holder of the appellant (who was permitted to appear by the order of the Court dated 12.02.2019) and Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The suit was filed on 22.10.2013 by the appellant against the State Bank of India seeking a relief of a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their employees from selling or attaching the property in question/Plot No. D-504, Indraprastha, Loni, Ghaziabad during pendency of the suit.
5. The second relief was of costs and the third was of any other relief that the plaintiff may be given from the defendant-SBI.
6. Certain relevant paragraphs of the plaint are stated below which are translated in English from Hindi:-
"2. That, the plaintiff has started employment for production of Tea Light Candle in year 2009 under the scheme of Government of India (P.M.E.G.P.) for the poor.
3. That, the plaintiff has been granted a financial aid of Rs. 14,00,000/- by State Bank Of India in July 2009 on behalf of the Government Of India under the aforesaid P.M.E.G.P. (Prime Minister Employment Guarantee Programme) to start the said employment.
4. That, the bank, under the P.M.E.G.P. Scheme, had taken more than 5 % margin money from the plaintiff which was approximately Rs. 1,00,000/-, taken by the State Bank of India and remaining money which was financed by the State Bank of India was given to the plaintiff in parts which the plaintiff was opposing since beginning.
5. That, the State Bank of India which is reputed and nationalized bank, before giving the approved aid amount to the plaintiff stated that the plaintiff must first show her previous stock, then the advance money will be given to the plaintiff/applicant on the basis of that stock which was very wrong for such employment which has to be started afresh, and the government is also providing financial help to start the same.
6. That, the grant amount which has been paid to the plaintiff by the defendant Bank was received by the defendant Bank from Nodal Bank, even then no relaxation in interest was given to the plaintiff by the defendant Bank, and the defendant Bank, without any prior information and without the consent of the plaintiff, included it in the credit account. Thereafter, the defendant Bank irregularly deducted fund from the Cash Credit Account and the Term Loan Account of the plaintiff due to which there has been delay in promotion of the employment of the plaintiff, although some part of that money had been returned by the defendant bank, but some interest of it and other deductions are to be clarified by the defendant bank, because of which the plaintiff faced a lot of difficulties in employment and meanwhile the plaintiff also lost a very huge order for export and the documentary evidence thereof is in safe custody of the plaintiff.
7. That, under the guidelines of the PMEGP scheme, the plaintiff had been exempted fr
