A civil suit seeking an injunction against claims governed by the NCLT is barred if the matter pertains to financial recovery, falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT according to statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Jain, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff under Section 96 CPC against the impugned order dated 01.3.2025 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra in O.S. no. 3 of 2021 Shivam Traders & Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd. vs. Madhusudan Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., whereby defendant's application 17-C under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and consequently, the plaint has been rejected.

Plaint case

2. The plaintiff appellant Shivam Traders & Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd. filed O.S. No. 3 of 2021 against the defendant Madhusudan Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.with the averments that the plaintiff is a company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, who has authorised through its resolution dated 11.5.2020 one of its director Smt. Meena Kumari wife of late Daya Shanker Gupta to sign and verify the plaint and file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff. It was further averred that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of financing as a non-banking financial company(NBFC) and is registered with Reserve Bank of India as NBFC having certificate of registration no. B – 12.00181. It was further averred that the plaintiff for its business has taken long term loan of Rs. 19.25 crores from the 19.25 crores from the defendant during the period 30.5.2019 to 10.6.2019 at an interest of 8% per annum compounded annually, the tenure of the loan was 9 years commencing from the date of disbursement of the loan, the repayment of the loan with interest was to be made after the maturity period of 9 years in 12 equal quarterly instalments. It was further averred that the terms of advancement of the above long-term loan and its repayment was reduced in the form of writing on 4.4.2019 containing the proposal of the defendant to grant the above loan and its acceptance by the plaintiff.

3. It was further averred that under the above agreement of long-term loan, it was specifically agreed that the defendant shall not have a right to call for the repayment of the loan or interest before the majority of the term of 9 years. The plaintiff duly submitted in the schedule 'A' of the plaint the details of disbursement of the above loan of Rs. 19.25 crores from the 19.25 crores. It was further averred that the plaintiff utilised the above long-term loan by giving long-term finance to the parties as part of its business activity and the defendant was bound by the terms of the above agreement of long-term loan and was precluded from asking for repayment of the loan before the expiry of 9 years from the date of disbursement of the loan. It was further averred that apart from the above long-term loan of Rs. 19.25 crores from the 19.25 crores, the plaintiff had also taken short-term loan of Rs. 19.25 crores from the 149,977/- from the defendant, which was not in dispute in the suit.

4. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant in utter disregard and in violation of the terms of the long-term loan agreement dated 4.4.2019, after expiry of only one year, started putting undue pressure on the plaintiff to repay the above loan amount of Rs. 19.25 crores from the 19.25 crores with interest and sent a letter dated 14.4.2020 to the plaintiff to repay the above loan amount with interest, which was followed by reminder dated 2.6.2020. It was further averred that in order to further pres