ORDER

Heard Mr. Mihir J. Thakore, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Salil M. Thakore, learned counsel and Ms. Feresthe Shethna, learned counsel for the appellant through Video Conferencing. Mr. Sahil Thakore, learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted written arguments through what’s app, which is taken on record.

2. The present appeal under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2020 passed by learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Kalol, District Gandhinagar, whereby, the suit has been rejected for want of cause of action and jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (now referred as “the Code” for short).

3. The present appellant-Sintex Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for short) filed a suit for declaration, injunction and damages against 19 defendants under Sections 34, 37 and 40 of the Specific Reliefs Act and prayed as under:

“(a) For an order of permanent mandatory injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from filing a Fraud Monitoring Return against the Plaintiff, or in the alternative, declaring any such purported Fraud Monitoring Return filed by Defendant No. 1 as illegal, null, void ab initio and non est.

(b) For a permanent mandatory injunction restraining the Defendants, its agents, servants and representatives from acting in pursuance of and/or in any manner whatsoever publishing, notifying and/or further relying upon any such purported Fraud Monitoring Return filed by Defendant no. 1 with the Reserve Bank of India, including but not limited to adopting any coercive action based thereon against the Plaintiff and/or its directors and/or key managerial personnel.

(c) For a decree of damages in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 in the sum of Rs. 100,00,00,000/- (Rupees one Hundred Crores) in the event of wrongful institution of the purported Fraud Monitoring Return.

(d) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present suit, for an order of stay in relation to the effect and operation of any action taken, contemplated and/or threatened in pursuance of Defendant no. 1’s purported Fraud Monitoring Return apprehended to have been lodged at the Central Fraud Registry maintained by the Reserve Bank of India, including but not limited to acting in pursuance thereof and/or in any manner whatsoever publishing, notifying and/or further relying thereupon and/or adopting any coercive action based thereon against the Plaintiff and/or its directors and/or key managerial personnel.

(e) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present suit, for an order directing the Defendants to consider any resolution plan that may be filed by the Plaintiff in the best interests of the Project and all shareholders.”

4. The brief facts which can be gathered from the appeal are as under:

4.1. It is an admitted facts that, the plaintiff company availed term loan facility from a consortium of bank vide a common loan agreement dated 30.12.2016. The lenders to the company are Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda, Bank of India, Syndicate Bank, Union Bank of India, Punjab and Sind Bank, Central Bank of India, Oriental Bank of Commerce, State Bank of India, Andhra Bank, South Indian Bank, IDBI Bank, Karnataka Bank. In June, 2019, following adverse financial reason, leading eventually to the inability to the plaintiff company to service its obligation to lenders and accordingly, a forensic audit was ordered by the lender consortium. It is also admitted fact that, in parallel the lender consortium has declared the account of the company as Non Performing Account (NPA) on 31.08.2019. The forensic audit report is awaited. The observations of the forensic auditor offered to the plaintiff company, for comments, on 15.06.2020, in aid of examination of whether a willful default is committed by the company, in relation to meeting its loan obligation to the lender consortium, under RB