Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2246 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010061622019)
IN
SUIT NO. 2077 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010059672019)
Abhay Narendra Lodha ...Plaintiff
Versus
Oriental Bank of Commerce & Another ...Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.31).
DATE : 4th OCTOBER, 2019.
Mr. Bobde a/w Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Prakash Shinde a/w Ms. Niyati Merchant, Advocate for Defendant
No.1.
None for Defendant No.2.
ORAL ORDER
This is a notice of motion taken out by plaintiff for
temporary injunction.
2. Plaintiff is a promoter, shareholder, personal guarantor of
the Company namely “Gujrat Foils Ltd.” (GFL Co.). The company deals
in manufacturing of aluminum rolled products. It is part of Topworth
Group which supplies aluminium sheets to various pharmaceutical
companies. The defendant bank has initiated a process to declare the
account of plaintiff as a fraud account. Hence this motion is preferred
by plaintiff.
-- 1 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 2 Order.
3. According to plaintiff, the GFL Company has a good track
of record in the business of aluminium foils. It has received several
certificates from foreign institute, various pharmaceutical companies
and electrical sector. The company has been sanctioned loans from a
consortium of lenders including the defendants upon due verification of
documents and completion of all formalities. The company has
received a prestigious certificate of DMF Type III in the year 2012. In
para 38 of the plaint a list of 7 lenders/banks is detailed by the plaintiff.
In view of order of the Hon'ble NCLT in Petition No. 116/07/2017 vide
order dated 30/11/2017 Mr. Alok Saxena is appointed as Interim
Resolution Professional (RP). The average liquidation value of
corporate debtor conducted by Resolution Professional was 73.29
Crores. However, maximus was chosen as L1 valued Rs.127 Crores,
which was 173% higher of the liquidation value of GFL. The various
meetings of Committee of Creditors (CoC) was constituted as
mentioned in para 41(x).
4. However due to recession in market and low price import,
the domestic aluminium industry was severely affected; mostly due to
low price import from China. The plaintiff has submitted a revised
resolution plan. Almost 60% lenders gave their approval. However
three lender banks dissented the resolution plan. There is nothing
adverse found against the GLF Company in a forensic audit report
prepared by M/s. S.P.Rungatha. Due to adverse market position the
GLF Company has suffered huge loss.
5. The plaintiff has issued letters dated 21/12/2018,
07/02/2019 and 02/05/2019 for providing details to mark the account
of plaintiff as 'Red Flagged' and fraud, however no information or the
-- 2 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 3 Order.
details has been provided to the plaintiff. All these notices are marked
as Exh.D. The GLF Company has received various notices under Section
13(2) of SARFAESI Act as detail mentioned in para 63 of the plaint.
6. According to plaintiff, the corporate debt restructuring was
failed and account of company with the defendant banks was classified
as NPA. The lenders initiated recovery proceeding, NCLT proceeding
etc. The account of company was declared as fraud without following
natural principle of law and guidelines of RBI as enumerated in Master
Circular dated 01/07/2016. Hence it is requested for temporary
injunction.
7. Defendant no.2 Bank of Baroda is failed to file reply.
8. Defendant no.1 Oriental Bank of Commerce has filed reply
on notice of motion, however the detail written statement is not filed by
the defendant no.1. It is averred that present notice of motion and suit
are deserves to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This is an attempt
to delay the recovery proceedings. The account of GLF Company is
declared as NPA. The lead Bank has conducted forensic audit report
wherein it can be noticed that huge fund is siphoned by the plaintiff. As
per Master Circular issued by the RBI dated 01/07/2016, the account of
plaintiff company is classified as 'Red Flagged and Fraud Account'. The
total loan of 13.50 Crores of all consortium banks is due towards
various companies of plaintiff as on 30/06/2019. The plaintiff has
suppressed material facts. As mentioned in para 12 of the reply, the
borrower company has failed and neglected to pay the due amount. The
plaintiff ought to have moved to the Hon'ble DRT. The civil court do
not have the jurisdiction. It is claimed to reject the motion.
-- 3 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 4 Order.
9. Ld. Advocate Mr. Bobde alongwith advocate Ms. Priyanka
Dubey has submitted on the following material points :
a) There is a loss caused to plaintiff due to recession and low
price import from China.
b) The defendant bank has declared the account of plaintiff as
fraud without following principles of natural justice.
c) The plaintiff company has issued various notices on
21/12/2018, 07/02/2019 and 02/05/2019 to seek
explanation in respect of declaration of account as 'fraud'.
However, no reply is given by the defendants 1 and 2.
d) The copy of forensic report is not supplied to plaintiff
despite various letters.
e) Almost 60% lenders gave approval for revise plan for
restructuring.
f) The GLF Company has received various notices under
Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and various properties of
the company came to be attached by the defendants.
g) Defendants Bank may proceed with attached properties and
may sale the same in SARFAESI proceedings.
h) Plaintiff is not against the process of recovery.
10. Ld. Advocate Prakash Shinde for defendant no.1 argued at
length. He submits that the suspended director has no role to play. As
per order of the N.C.L.T., Ahmedabad dated 30/11/2017, IRP Mr. Alok
Saksena was appointed. Therefore this Court do not vest the
jurisdiction. The material points from the arguments advanced on
behalf of defendant no.1 are as follows :
a) In view of Section 17, 18 and 231 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Act (2016) I.B.Code, this Court do not vest the
-- 4 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 5 Order.
jurisdiction.
b) In GLF meeting dated 19/09/2016 and 15/11/2016,
representative of Topworth Company was present. On
27/06/2017 plaintiff in person was present.
c) Even in absence of forensic report, the account of debtor
can be declared as 'Red Flagged'.
d) A member of consortium bank can rely on forensic report of
a lead bank.
e) If the prescribed time limit is not followed by the bank, it
will be penalized by the RBI.
11. Ld. Advocate Mr. Shinde for defendant no.1 submits that
even in absence of forensic report / audit report, the account of any
company can be declared as fraud. The civil court do not vest the
jurisdiction. Hence it is claimed to reject the motion.
12. On perusal of Section 60 of I.B.Code, it is in respect of
adjudication in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for
corporate persons. It is to note that no order issued by N.C.L.T. is
challenged by plaintiff. Plaintiff approached this Court to restrain
defendants from using coercive action and filing criminal cases against
the plaintiff and other directors relying on master circular of R.B.I.
Therefore Section 60 of I.B.Code do not attract in present case.
13. It would be appropriate to note admitted facts at the
inception. Upon completion of all formalities, loan was sanctioned by
the defendant bank to plaintiff company. The process of declaring
fraud is based on master circular dated 01.07.2016. Plaintiff is not
against the process of recovery. The copy of forensic report is not given
-- 5 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 6 Order.
to plaintiff. The scope of action under master circular is very wide, it
includes lawyers, auditors etc. relating to preparation of report of
company.
14. It is not disputed that defendant bank has initiated action
under master circular dated 01.07.2016. According to learned advocate
for defendant, in view of M/s Innovative Industries V/s ICICI bank
(Civil Appeal 8337/12017 decided on 31.08.2017), it is held that the
suit by insolvent company is not maintainable before the civil court.
15. The material question is whether present suit is tenable
before this court. In Bank of India V/s Gupta Coal (Civil revision
97/2017 decided on 04.09.2018) it is observed that suit relating to
red flag and fraud account as per master circular is maintainable before
the civil court. The observations of the Hon'ble Lordship of Hon'ble
High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur are reproduced for sake of
convenience:
“The relief as sought is a declaration that the action of the
defendants in declaring the account of the plaintiff
Company as fraud is illegal followed by prayer for
permanent injunction. Various documents including the
Forensic Audit Report have been filed on record.”
“The relief as sought in the suit is with regard to
declaration of the account of the plaintiffCompany as
a fraud account. The same cannot be said to be a
dispute arising out of ordinary transactions of bankers
and traders. It is the case of the plaintiffCompany
that in view of various guidelines of the Reserve
Bank of India and Master Circular, its accounts has
-- 6 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 7 Order.
been declared as fraud account without following the
due procedure and in breach of principles of natural
justice. In the light of the challenge as raised, it
would be the Civil court that would retain jurisdiction
to entertain the suit.”
“Same can not be a reason to reject the plaint. In
view of the fact that the reliefs sought in the plaint are
not those reliefs which are impermissible in view of
provisions of the Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of
1993 as well as Section 34 of the Act of 2002, the
cognizance of the suit is not barred before the civil
court.”
16. In view of aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay in Gupta Coal Case (supra), it is crystal clear that present suit
is tenable before the civil court.
17. The material question is whether essential conditions as per
master circular are followed by the defendant bank before the plaintiff
account is red flagged and declared as fraud. It is necessary to peruse
some basic conditions as mentioned in the master circular issued by the
RBI dated 01.07.2016. Para no. 3.2 from said circular is reproduced as
follows.:
“3.2 Reporting of frauds to Reserve Bank of India.
3.2.1. Banks need to furnish Fraud Monitoring Return
(FMR) in individual fraud cases, irrespective of the amount
involved, to RBI electronically using FMR Application in
XBRL System supplied to them within three weeks from the
date of detection.
-- 7 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 8 Order.
3.2.2. A monthly certificate, as per AnnexI, (mentioning
that soft copy of all the FMRs have been submitted to RBI)
is to be submitted by the bank to CFMC, Bengaluru with a
copy to the respective SSM of the bank, within seven days
from the end of the month.”
18. The para no. 3.2.6 speaks about time limit for flash report.
It runs as follows.:
“3.2.6. In addition to the FMR, banks are required to
furnish a Flash Report (FR) for fraud involving amounts of
Rs.50 million and above within a week of such frauds
coming to the notice of the bank's head office. The FR is to
be furnished in the form of a DO letter addressed to the
PCGM/ CGMinCharge, DBS, RBI, Central Office, Mumbai
with a copy to CFMC, Bengaluru. The FR, inter alia, should
include amount involved, nature of fraud, modus operandi
in brief, name of the branch/ office, names of parties
involved, their constitution, names of proprietors/ partners
and directors, names of officials involved and lodging of
complaint with police/CBI.”
19. According to para no. 3.3, in respect of delay in reporting
frauds and to fix responsibility of staff. It runs as follows.:
3.3.1. Bank should ensure that the reporting system is
suitable streamlined so that delays in reporting of frauds,
submission of delay and incomplete fraud reports are
avoided. Banks must fix staff accountability in respect of
delays in reporting fraud cases to RBI.
“3.3.2. Delay in reporting of frauds and the consequent
-- 8 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 9 Order.
delay in alerting other banks about the modus operandi
and dissemination of information through Caution Advice/
CFR against unscrupulous borrowers could result in similar
frauds being perpetrated elsewhere. Bank should
therefore, strictly adhere to the time frame fixed in this
circular for reporting of fraud cases to RBI failing which
they would be liable for penal action prescribed under
Section 47(A) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.”
20. It is material to note that the delay as expected in para no.
3.3 of master circular is not explained by the defendant bank nor
responsibility of staff is fixed for avoiding to report the fraud to RBI, if
any.
21. Para no. 4.4 of master circular speaks about special
committee of the board, which includes MD and C.E.O. of the company.
Defendant is failed to clarify in respect of such committee formed by
defendant.
22. Para no. 8.3 of master circular is in a respect of EWS and
RFA (early warning signals and red flagged accounts). It expects detail
investigation into RFA. The modalities for monitory and detailed study
of annual report as whole is expected by FMG (fraud monitoring
group). The report require to submit to the special committee of the
board. Para no. 8.7 and 8.8 are in respect of prompt reporting. The
material part is reproduced as follows.
“Delay, for the purpose of this circular, would mean that the
fraud was not flashed to CFMC, RBI or reported on the CRILC
platform, RBI within a period of one week from its (i)
-- 9 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 10 Order.
classification as a fraud through the RFA route which has a
maximum time line of six months or (ii) detection/ declaration as
a fraud ab initio by the bank as hitherto.
8.8 Bank as a sole lender.
8.8.1. In cases where the bank is the sole lender, the FMG will
take a call on whether an account in which EWS are observed
should be classified as RFA or not. This exercise should be
completed as soon as possible and in any case within a month of
the EWS being noticed. In case the account is classified as RFA,
the FMG will stipulate the nature and level of further
investigations or remedial measures necessary to protect the
bank's interest within a stipulated time which can not exceed six
months.”
23. It is surprising to note that defendant bank is silent in
respect of prompt reporting and stipulated time, as mentioned above. It
is incumbent on the part of bank to use external auditors, including
forensic experts and internal team to investigate before taking a final
view on the RFA. (Red flagged accounts.)
24. It is to note that plaintiff has issued the notices on
21/12/2018, 07/02/2019 and 02/05/2019. However, no reply was
given by the defendant. However, in view of petition preferred by the
defendant bank, Hon'ble NCLT, Ahmedabad has appointed Insolvency
Resolution Professional to Mr. Alok Saksena on 30/11/2017. During
January to August, 2018, various meetings of Committee of Creditors
were conducted, but nothing adverse came to be recorded against the
plaintiff borrower.
-- 10 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 11 Order.
25. Ld. Advocate Shinde for defendant no.1 submits that Mr.
S.P.Rungta was appointed as expert and he conducted forensic report. It
was not conducted by the defendant 1 or 2, but it was conducted by the
lead bank i.e. Allahabad Bank. In Chapter 1 it is observed by Mr.
S.P.Rungta that the plaintiff company has incurred huge loss in
financial year 201617.
26. In forensic report Chapter 1 Para C under the title
'Methodology & Limitations' para no.3 and 6 from the observations are
material to reproduce i.e.
“3. Our Report or its part of the findings is
strictly meant for Allahabad Bank and should not
be used by anyone without written consent.
Further, this report or any communication in this
regard cannot be used by the Bank for any other
purpose including filing the same before any
judicial authority.”
“6. Whilst we have taken reasonable steps to
corroborate the information obtained, we cannot
guarantee its reliability or completeness. For
these reasons this report should be used for
guidance purpose only. It should not form the
sole basis for any basis any decision as to a
potential course of action without independent
information of neither its findings; nor it should
be relied upon as preferred advice on assets in
question or the concerned the entities and
individuals to which it relates.”
-- 11 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 12 Order.
27. As observed by the Chartered Accountant Mr. S.P.Rungta &
Associates, the impugned report shall meant for Allahabad Bank only
and said cannot be used before any judicial authority. The limitations
of said report as discussed in para 6. Accordingly Mr. Rungta is not
sure about his finding, reliability or completeness.
28. In Para no.11.9.3 of the Master Circular, it is observed that
individual banks must conduct their own due diligence before taking
any credit exposure and also independently monitor the end use of
funds rather than depend fully on the consortium leader.
29. In Para 11.9.4 of the Master Circular, it is expected that
within 15 days from the Red Flagged Account, the lender bank should
convene the meeting of JLF. The material part from Para 11.9.4 is
reproduced as follows :
“11.9.4. Thereafter, within 15 days, the bank which has
red flagged the account or detected the fraud would ask
the consortium leader or the largest lender under MBA to
convene a meeting of the JLF to discuss the issue. The
meeting of the JLF so requisitioned must be convened
within 15 days of such a request being received. In case
there is a broad agreement, the account would be classified
as a fraud; else based on the majority rule of agreement
amongst banks with at least 60% share in the total lending,
the account would be red flagged by all the banks and
subjected to a forensic audit commissioned or initiated by
the consortium leader or the largest lender under MBA.
All banks, as part of the consortium or multiple banking
arrangements, would share the costs and provide the
-- 12 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 13 Order.
necessary support for such an investigation.”
30. In Para 11.9.5 of the Master Circular, it is expected that
forensic audit must be completed within maximum period of three
months. In Para 11.9.6 of the Master Circular, it is incumbent to
complete entire exercise in six months.
31. It is surprising to note that defendant bank is silent in
respect of prompt reporting and stipulated time, as mentioned above. It
is essential on the part of bank to use external auditors, including
forensic experts and internal team to investigate before taking a final
view on the RFA. (Red flagged accounts.)
32. On perusal of letter dated 06/05/2019 by which plaintiff's
company is declared as fraud, however no reasons are given. There are
various meetings of consortium were called from March 2014 to
January 2017. In meeting dated 21/01/2017 plaintiff's account was
declared as 'Red Flagged'. However numerous letters were issued by
the plaintiff to call for explanation and documents. However no
information came to be supplied by the defendant banks.
33. The consequences of a willful default is spelt out in
paragraph 2.5 of the master circular. The consequences are of a serious
nature and character. The consequences are that
“(i) No additional facilities can be granted by any bank or
financial institution to an entity which is listed as a willful
defaulter;
(ii) Enterprenuers and promoters of companies where there has
been a siphoning off or diversion of funds or a
-- 13 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 14 Order.
misrepresentation, falsification of accounts or fraudulent
transactions are debarred from institutional finance for a
period of five years;
(iii) Legal proceedings against borrowers and guarantors and
for foreclosure and recovery of dues are instituted. Lenders
may initiate criminal proceedings against willful defaulters
wherever necessary; and
(iv) Banks and financial institutions may adopt a proactive
approach for a change of management of a willfully
defaulting borrower unit.”
34. As observed in Finolex Industries (infra), these are serious
consequences which ensue on the declaration of an entity as a willful
defaulter and only go to emphasise the importance of complying with
the principles of natural justice before a decision is finally arrived at. A
determination in regard to an entity being a willful defaulter can only
be made after compliance with the procedure which has been
established in paragraph 3 of the master circular. Absent compliance
with the procedural norms, and upon a breach of the principles of
natural justice, the decision would stand vitiated.
35. As observed in Finolex Industries V/s. R.B.I. (W.P.No.
345/2011 dated 24/08/2011) the master circular contemplates a two
stage enquiry i.e.
“The first stage contemplates that a decision to
classify a borrower as a willful defaulter is
entrusted to a committee of “Higher
Functionaries” headed by the Executive Director
and consists of two General Managers / DGMS as
-- 14 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 15 Order.
may be decided by the Board of the bank or
financial institution. The object of entrusting the
decision to a committee of higher functionaries is
with a view to imparting objectivity in identifying
cases of willful default. The circular requires that
a decision taken on classification of willful
defaulters should “be well documented and
supported by requisite evidence”. The decision
has to “clearly spell out the reasons for which the
borrower has been declared as a willful defaulter
visavis RBI guidelines”. At the first stage, when
proceedings take place before a committee of
higher functionaries (the Willful Defaulters'
Committee or WDC), no hearing has been
contemplated. The circular, however, postulates
that thereafter the borrower should be suitably
advised about the proposal to classify him as a
willful defaulter along with reasons in support
thereof. A reasonable period of time of about
fifteen days is to be provided for making a
representation against such a decision to a
Grievance Redressal Committee headed by the
Chairman and Managing Director and consisting
of two senior officials. That is the second stage
where the borrower submits a representation and
is heard. The Grievance Redressal Committee
has to give a hearing to the borrower if he
represents that he has been wrongly classified as
a willful defaulter. A final declaration as a willful
-- 15 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 16 Order.
defaulter can be made after a view is taken by the
committee on the representation.”
36. It is held in Finolex Industries Limited (supra) that :
“It was incumbent on the part of the Grievance
Redressal Committee to forward all the required
documents to facilitate compliance with the
principles of natural justice. In that case, it was
held that nonfurnishing of the documents
amounted to a violation of the principles of
natural justice.”
37. In Moserbaer India Ltd. V/s. State Bank of Bikaner &
Jaipur & Anr. (Civil W.P.No. 7488/2016 dated 07/09/2016) the
High Court of Rajasthan expects some conditions to be fulfilled before
declaring any account as 'willful defaulter'. It is observed that :
“An opportunity of hearing ought to be effective
hearing. Fair play demand that the documents/
evidence on which Identification Committee
relied before issuing a show cause notice, must
be shared or shown to the petitioner/borrower
company so that they can put forward their
defence and explain purport of the documents.”
38. In M/s. Oswal Apparels Private Limited V/s. SBI, the
Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil W.P.No. 3307/2016
dated 14/02/2017 observed that :
“It is also settled principle of law that the
documents that are relied upon by any authority
-- 16 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 17 Order.
in arriving at a conclusion must be made
available to the affected party to conform to the
principles of natural justice. That apart, the
petitioners ought to have been afforded adequate
opportunity to present their case in its correct
perspective.”
39. As observed above, the scope of final measures in master
circular for fraudulent borrower is very wide. It is not limited for
recovery of loan. Plaintiff is defaulted in payment of loan due to
recession in market.
40. Ld. Advocate for plaintiff submits that merely default in
repayment cannot be the ground to lodge criminal complaint against
the debtor. As observed in Satishchandra Shah V/s. State of Gujarat
And Another (Criminal Appeal No. 9/2019 dated 03/01/2019) the
Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows :
“The law clearly recognizes a difference between
simple payment/investment of money and
entrustment of money or property. A mere breach
of a promise, agreement or contract does not, ipso
facto, constitute the offence of the criminal breach
of trust contained in Section 405 IPC without there
being a clear case of entrustment.”
41. In Hridaya Verma V/s. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168
it is observed that,
“In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was
trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had
-- 17 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 18 Order.
approached the respondent no. 2 to ameliorate the
situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the
aforesaid amount, the respondent no.2 had
instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of
the loan amount which is still pending adjudication.
The mere inability of the appellant to return the
loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal
prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning
of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the
crux of the offence.”
42. As observed in aforesaid two rulings, the legislature
intended to criminalize only those breaches which are accompanied by
fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive inducements, which resulted in
involuntary and inefficient transfers, under Section 415 of IPC.
43. Plaintiff Abhay Lodha is promoter, director and guarantor
in GFL Private Limited. The copy of forensic report is not supplied by
defendant to plaintiff nor produced before this Court. There is no
evidence submitted by the defendant that requirements of master
circular are complied. Defendants 1 and 2 bank are relying on forensic
report of Allahabad Bank. Accordingly, there is no individual or
separate forensic report prepared by the defendants bank.
44. The aforesaid discussion can be summarized in following
points :
A) The principles of natural justice are not followed by the
bank before declaring the account as 'willful defaulter' or
-- 18 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 19 Order.
'fraud'.
B) Five notices are issued under the SARFAESI Act and
properties of plaintiff company came to be attached by the
bank.
C) The forensic report is not complete in all sense.
D) The letter dated 06/05/2019 declaring fraud has no detail
reasons.
E) Various notices of plaintiff to seek for information and
documents are remain unreplied on the part of defendant.
F) In reply filed by defendant no.1 no instances are given in
respect of siphoning of funds.
G) The prescribed schedule as stipulated in master circular
about time limit, responsibilities of staff etc. is not followed
by the bank.
H) There is no reply / W.S. is filed by defendant no.2.
45. In view of aforesaid discussion, there is a strong prima facie
case in favour of plaintiff. In forensic report, there is no whisper in
respect of diversion of funds by the promoter or siphoning of funds by
any director. Plaintiff do not have any grudge if proceeding under
SARFAESI Act would be continued by the defendant bank. It appears
that defendant bank has initiated the action for recovery of loan under
the garb of master circular dated 01/07/2016.
46. The property of plaintiff company is attached under
SARFAESI Act. Plaintiff don't have any objection to continue with sale
of said property. Admittedly, upon mortgage of various properties of
company, loan came to be sanctioned by defendant bank. Plaintiff is
ready to face consequences of DRT and recovery proceeding.
-- 19 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 20 Order.
47. Considering wide scope of master circular, the balance of
convenience lies in favour of plaintiff. Obviously, irreparable loss will
be caused to plaintiff, if the court refuse to grant injunction as prayed.
Hence, the order :
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion no. 2246 of 2019 is allowed, as
per prayer clause “a” and “b”.
2. Defendant bank, personally or through representative
are restrained from taking coercive action against
plaintiff on account of red flag or fraud account,
based on master circular. Defendant or their
representative are restrained from branding the
plaintiff as willfull defaulter and publishing the name
of plaintiff as defaulter, till further order.
3. Defendant may submit written statement in detail to
expedite hearing.
4. It is made clear that defendant bank may continue
with proceeding under SARFAESI Act, recovery
proceeding, attachment and sale of attached property
to recover the defaulted loan against plaintiff.
5. Notice of Motion no. 2246 of 2019 is disposed of
accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
Date : 04/10/2019. City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 13/09/2019, 01 & 04/10/2019.
2. Transcribed on : 18/09/2019, 03 & 04/10/2019.
3. Signed on : 05/10/2019.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
-- 20 of 21 --
N/m No. 2246/19 in Suit No. 2077/19. 21 Order.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
05/10/2019. 5.40 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.31).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 04/10/2019.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 05/10/2019.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 05/10/2019.
-- 21 of 21 --