Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION N0.3076 OF 2019
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.2216 OF 2019
(CNR NO.MHCC01-008409-2019)
Mr.Abhay Narendra Lodha )...Plaintiff
Versus
Canara Bank & Anr. )...Defendants.
Appearance:-
Adv. Mr.Bobade a/w. Adv.Priyanka Dubey for the plaintiff.
Exparte against defendant no.1.
Adv. Sujata Dahigaonkar for defendant No.2.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI R.V.KOKARE
DATE : 11/02/2020 (C.R.No.31)
O R D E R
This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff for
temporarily restrained to the defendants from acting upon the
defendants declaration of the account the company as 'Fraud' account
and taking any coercive action on account or on the basis of the said
declaration, in any manner of whatsoever nature in the suit filed by the
plaintiff for declaration.
Brief facts of notice of motion of the plaintiff are as under-
2. The plaintiff is a director ( Suspended Board in view of admission
of Section 7 application under provisions of I & B Code, 2016 by the
Hon'ble NCLT, Mumbai) and promoter of “Topworth Pipes &Tubes
Pvt.Ltd.” ( hereinafter referred to as the “Company” or “TPTPL”), a
-- 1 of 20 --
2
company which has been incorporated on 18/11/2005. The defendants
are two of the lenders of TPTPL Company.
3. The defendants have labeled the Company as fraud and the
plaintiff is filing the present suit before this Hon'ble Court challenging
the aforesaid illegal and improper acts of the defendants and seeking
declaration from this Hon'ble Court that the action of the defendants in
declaring the account of the company as fraud, is illegal, in violation of
guidelines of R.B.I. dated 01/07/2016 and further seeking injunctions.
4. The plaintiff further submitted that the company is into
manufacturing of Helical Submerged Arc Welding (H-SAW) and Electric
Resistance Welded(ERW)steel pipes. H-SAW pipes are made from helical
rolling of steel coils. The main advantage of using H-SAW pipes is that it
can be manufactured to have high thickness as well as a large diameter.
The plant was commissioned in the year 2010. It is equipped with State-
of-the art, High speed two-step Spiral pipe mill with continuous welding
speed of 10mts/mins. The company within a short period has been able
to achieve the stringent quality requirement and has been awarded
various certifications. The defendants bank are lenders of the plaintiff.
The defendants bank had sanctioned various credit facilities after due
diligence and accepting several securities in the form of primary and
collateral.
5. Since 2010, the Iron Steel Industry is passing through a difficult
situations. Such industries further came under pressure by cheap import
of steel from China and Russia. In the year 2017, the Steel Industry
witnessed its toughest set back. Other reputed companies dealing in
same business. The HR Coils(HRC) are the main raw material required
-- 2 of 20 --
3
for manufacturing HSAW and ERW Pipes. The prices of HSAW pipes are
positively correlate with the prices of HRC. However, during initial
period of FY2014-15, the increase in cost of HRC was more as
compared to increase in prices of pipes. Moreover, due to stiff
competition in the pipe industry, the company was not able to pass the
substantial increase in raw material prices. This resulted in reduction of
operational margins and eventually forced company to incur losses.
6. There is master circular issued by R.B.I. for declaring any account
as fraud by following certain procedure. Here, defendants have not
followed due procedure given in master circular and declared plaintiffs
account as fraud. Even they have not followed the rule of natural justice
by not giving opportunity of hearing to plaintiff. There are serious
consequences of any account as fraud. Considering said serious nature
consequences, it was mandatory for defendants to follow the procedure
as well as time line given in master circular. On these grounds the
plaintiffs are submitted that the plaintiff has prima facie case, balance of
convenience in favour of the plaintiff, if this notice of motion is not
granted in favour of the plaintiff, then plaintiff will suffer irreparable
loss, which will not compensate in terms of money. Hence, this notice of
motion.
7. The defendant no.1 is duly served, but the defendant no.1 is not
appeared. Hence, exparte order passed against the defendant no.1. The
defendant no. 2 is resisted this notice of motion by filing its reply.
Brief facts of the reply of the defendant no.2 are as under-
8. Through the present notice of motion the plaintiff is praying for
ultimate prayer which is prayed in the suit, at the interim stage where
-- 3 of 20 --
4
the evidence not adduced by the parties, such prayer at this stage
cannot be granted and entertaining or allowing said notice of motion
will effectively decide the suit itself and cause grave and irreparable loss
to the defendant no.2 bank. The plaintiff is one of the directors of the
company M/s.Topworth Pipes and Tubes Pvt.Ltd. and the company itself
have not filed any proceeding nor any resolution authorizing the
plaintiff to do so. This suit as well as notice of motion is nothing but
futile effort on the part of the plaintiff who has no locus standi to file
any such suit. The plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean
hands and concealed the very fact that this proceeding has not been
supported by the company. The defendant no. 2 has further submitted
that without adducing evidence fraud cannot be demonstrated and
quashed or cannot be stayed either. The defendant no.2 is a
Nationalized Bank and strictly operates as per the norms of the Reserve
Bank of India. But the plaintiff avoided joining the Reserve Bank of
India as party to the suit. The defendant no. 2 hereby confirms that the
action taken against the company is just and proper and the plaintiff has
not established prima facie that the action is absurd or otherwise.
9. The defendant no.2 bank has further submitted that
M/s.Topworth Pipes and Tubes Ltd. was engaged in manufacturing H-
SAW and ERW pipes. The company was financed by a consortium of 7
banks, led by PNB. Other banks in the consortium are SBI, Allahabad
Bank, Canara Bank, Union Bank of India, OBC, BOB and Syndicate
Bank, the defendant no.2. Total exposure to the company is
Rs.114025.00 lakh and our exposure is Rs.10718.00 lakh which is
9.61% share. BOB, SBI and OBC have reported the account as fraud and
other banks are yet to report the case as fraud. In the consortium
meeting held on 16/07/2018, the issue was deliberated and consortium
-- 4 of 20 --
5
took a decision that banks may independently take a final call for
declaring the account as fraud.
10. The company is banking with us since 2010 with an initial
overdraft limit of Rs.1000.00 lakh, LC limit of 3900.00 lakh and BG
limit of Rs.2100.00 lakh which were sanctioned on 08/11/2010, under
consortium arrangement. The facilities were last renewed on
31/03/2015. Lcs aggregating to Rs.6386.09 lakh have devolved and are
debited to overdraft limit. The bank guarantees amounting to
Rs.1236.00 crores have been invoked during 2014-15 and debited to
overdraft limit. All other BGs are closed and no BG is outstanding as on
date.
11. The defendant no.2 further states that the forensic audit dated
20/09/2016 conducted by M/s.J Singh and Associates has detected
fraudulent transactions of different nature in the accounts of the
company. Out of Rs.624.25 crores of total working capital limit availed
by the company from the consortium member banks, only Rs. 389.71
crores were utilized properly and the remaining Rs. 234.54 crores were
used for the purposes other than working capital requirement,
indicating diversion of bank funds. Rs.38.14 crores of working capital
funds were used to purchase fixed assets and for construction of factory
building. The company paid Rs.872.40 crores as advance to suppliers
for purchase of raw materials, whereas no purchases were made
subsequently. This is termed as diversion of funds and not a prudent
business practice.
12. The defendant no. 2 further states that the account is classified as
NPA on 01/12/2014. Presently, it is classified as DA-2 and the branch
-- 5 of 20 --
6
has made provision of Rs.69.12 crores as on 30/09/2018. On the unit
visit made by consortium members during October 2016, found that the
unit was closed, power supply was disconnected hardly any staff on site,
no stock of either raw materials or finished goods at the site. The
consortium has filed original application with DRT-I Mumbai on
24/08/2017 and registered in DRT as OA(L) No.593/2017. Presently,
the case is at the stage of document verification before the Registrar.
13. The defendant no.2 has further submitted that if this Hon'ble
Court allows any stay to operate against that of the bank then it is very
difficult for the banks to restrict the frauds of such companies and the
finances made by the Banks can never be recovered and the fake
borrowers and deliberate or willful defaulter will assume that no action
can be initiated against them by the banks. Further, it may cause to set
the wrong landmarks that anyone can cheat the bank and can take
shelter of legal course for protecting their illegal deeds.
14. Heard learned counsel Mr.Bobade on behalf of the plaintiff and
Ld. Counsel Ms.Sujata Dahigaonkar on behalf of defendant no.2. In
view of rival pleadings of both the parties, following points arise for my
determination. I have recorded my findings alongwith reasons are as
follows.
Sr.Nos. POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether the plaintiff proves
prima facie case ?
-yes-
2 Whether the plaintiff proves
that balance of convenience lies
in favour of the plaintiff ?
-yes-
3 Whether the plaintiff proves
that plaintiff will suffer
-yes-
-- 6 of 20 --
7
irreparable loss, if this notice of
motion is rejected?
4 What order ? As per final order
REASONS
As to point nos.1 to 3-
15. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of plaintiff and
defendants, and perused rival pleadings of both the parties. I have
perused documents produced on behalf of both the sides. It appears to
me that it is the contension of defendants Bank that plaintiff has
diverted and siphoned off the loan amount and not kept the obligations
of repayment of amount in time. Therefore, based on forensic audit
report plaintiff has declared as fraud. As against this, it is the grievance
of plaintiff that defendants have not followed due procedure laid down
in master circular while declaring him as fraud. Defendants have not
given opportunity of hearing and thereby not followed the rule of
natural justice. Before going towards the factual aspect it will be better
to deal with the legal objections raised by the learned counsel on behalf
of defendants.
16. The learned counsel of the defendants argued that through this
notice of motion the plaintiff is praying for ultimate prayer which is
prayed in the suit, at the interim stage where the evidence not adduced
by the parties, such prayer at this stage cannot be granted. The learned
counsel of the defendant No.2 relied the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6349 of 2011 i.e. Sec. U.P.S.C. and
Anr. V/s. S.Krishna Chaitanya. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
“ we may add here that this court has observed time and again than an
interim order should not be of such nature that by virtue of which a
-- 7 of 20 --
8
petition or an application, as the case may be is finally allowd or
granted at an interim stage.” As against this, the learned counsel of the
plaintiff has argued that this is a suit for declaration against the action
initiated by defendants. Plaintiff is challenging the virus of action taken
by defendants and therefore, interim injunction can be granted.
17. Here, plaintiff is seeking declaration against the action of
defendants declaring him as fraud. The defendants have admitted that
Banks of BOB, SBI, OBC members banks of consoritum declared to the
plaintiff company as fraud. The action levelled by defendants is based
on master circular. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this notice of
motion is maintainable.
18. The learned counsels on behalf of the defendnats have taken the
objection is that defendants came with the case that suit is not tenable
in view of provisions of section 9 of CPC. It is argued that as per
explanation- 1 to section 9, a suit in which the right to property or to an
office is contested, is a suit of civil nature. Here, the suit is neither
related to property nor an office. Therefore, such declaratory suit is not
a Civil Suit within the meaning of section 9 and therefore, it is not
tenable. As against this, it is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of
the plaintiff that this is a suit for declaration against the action initiated
by defendants. Plaintiff is challenging the virus of action taken by
defendants and therefore, suit will lie as per section 9 of Civil Procedure
Code.
19. Section 9 of CPC deals with jurisdiction of the Civil Courts and
bar thereon. It says that Court is empowered to try all Civil suits unless
barred by law. It is settled legal position is that Civil Court has every
-- 8 of 20 --
9
jurisdiction to try the suit. No doubt, Civil Court cannot try and
entertain the suit which are expressly or implied barred. Here, plaintiff
is seeking declaration against the action of defendants declaring him as
fraud. The action leveled by defendants is based on Master Circular
issued under R.B.I Guidelines. Therefore, in my opinion, nothing will
bar from presenting such grievance before Civil Court. As such, I am of
opinion that Civil Court has every jurisdiction to try and entertain such
nature of suit. Therefore, there is no any force for argument of the
learned counsel on behalf of the defendants for saying that this Court
has no jurisidiction to entertain and decided this suit in view of Section
9 of Civil Procedure Code.
20. Another objection raised by learned counsel for defendants that
the suit is prematured one. It is argued that till this time plaintiff is not
declared as willful defaulter. Therefore, any relief against declaration as
willful defaulter is premature one. As against this, it is argued by Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff that herein is a case of fraud and not willful
defaulter. Plaintiff is already declared as fraud. Therefore, the objection
raised by defendants about premature suit is not sustainable.
21. I have gone through the copy of notice of motion as well as
plaint. Plaintiff is seeking relief against declaration of fraud. No where it
is mentioned that he is challenging his declaration as willful defaulter.
As such, it is not a case of willful defaulter but it is a case of fraud.
Admittedly, plaintiff account is declared as fraud. Therefore, there is no
question of any premature relief. Record goes to show that on
declaration as fraud plaintiff has approached this court. So also it is not
a case of declaration as willful defaulter. Therefore, the objection raised
by defendants about premature suit is non sustainable.
-- 9 of 20 --
10
22. It is argued on behalf of defendants that plaintiff is seeking relief
against account of borrower Company. However, said Company is not
made party to this litigation and therefore, in absence of company as
party plaintiff has no locus to file the suit. As against this, it is argued by
Ld.Counsel for plaintiff that though the account of Company is declared
as RFA and fraud, consequences on declaration as fraud are personally
applicable against the promoters and directors of suspended borrower
company. Therefore, plaintiff can very well seek relief before Civil Court
in absence on comapany as a party. Admittedly, plaintiff has challenged
the declaration of Companies account as fraud. However, it is made
clear that plaintiff is not seeking any relief against recovery
proceedings. As per Rule 8.12 of the master circular the penal majors on
declaration of account as fraud are directly applicable against the
directors and promoters. They cannot be director of any Company nor
can avail loan from any financial institutions. So also there is every
aprehension of criminal proceedings against him. As such, consequences
are directly affecting the personal rights of directors and promoters.
Therefore, in my opinion suit is maintable without adding Company as
party.
23. So far as factual aspect is concerned, it is the grievance of plaintiff
that, defendants have not followed the guidelines and procedure as
given in master circular and therefore, the declaration of plaintiff as
fraud is not proper. As against this, it is the defence of defendants that
before declaring plaintiff as fraud, banks have followed the guidelines
and procedure given in master circular by giving fair opportunity to
plaintiff to place his case. So the nature of dispute is that it is the
contention of plaintiff that defendants have not followed proper
procedure before declaring him as fraud while it is the defence of
-- 10 of 20 --
11
defendants bank that plaintiff is declared as fraud by following due
procedure laid down in master circular. It is settled legal position that,
Court will not expect nor anyone can bring negative evidence. Court
will expect positive evidence and in case of failure to bring it, negative
inference has to be drawn. So little more burden is on defendants to
show that it has followed due procedure before declaring plaintiff as
fraud.
24. It is first grievance of plaintiff that in master circular certain time
line is given for completing the process of declaring any account as
fraud. As per said circular, the maximum time limit is six months. Here,
there is no information on record as to when plaintiff's account was
declared as RFA. There is only information is that plaintiff's account is
declared as fraud. So,it goes to show that defendants have not observed
the time limit given in master circular. As against this, it is the
submission of learned counsel for defendants that plaintiff's account is
declared as fraud by following the time limit given in master circular.
25. I have gone through the master circular issued on 01/07/2015. It
is master circular on fraud. Chapter 8 of said master circular deals with
loans fraud, new frame work. Rule 8.8 deals with Bank as sole lender.
As per said Rule in case of Sole Lender the fraud monitoring group
(FMG) will take a call on whether an account in which early warning
signals are observed should be classifiled as RFA. The exercise should
be done within a month from EWS being noticed. The bank may used
external auditiors including forensic experts. However, said exercised,
has to be done within six months from declaration as RFA. Here, no
where defendants bank came with clear statement as to when plaintiff's
account is declared as RFA. It is only contention that plaintiff's account
was declared as fraud. In absence of exact date of declaration as RFA it
-- 11 of 20 --
12
is difficult to conclude whether defendants bank have declared
plaintiff's account has fraud within six months from RFA. As defendants
bank is silent about date of declaration of the account as RFA, adverse
inferance can be drawn that defendants bank have to adhered the time
limit of six months in declaring plaintiff's account as fraud. Even no
explanation is given on behalf of defendants bank for keeping mum
regarding date of declartion of the plaintiff's account as RFA. So, this
point will go against defendant's bank.
26. Lending under consortium or multiple banking arrangement.
Admittedly, here is case of multiple Banking. As per sub rule 8.9.4 after
declaration of fraud by individual bank it has to be reported to R.B.I
within 21 days. Further, within 15 days of fraud classification the
individual bank has to ask consortium leader to convene a meeting to
discuss the issue. Such meeting must be convened within 15 days of
such request. In case there is a broad arrangement the account should
be classified as a fraud else based on the majority decision can be taken
subjected to a Forensic Audit. As per rule 8.9.5 the Forensic Audit must
be completed within a maximum period of three months and within 15
days of completion of Forensic Audit the JLF shall reconvene and decide
on the status of account. As per rule 8.9.6 the over time allowed for the
entire exercise is of six months from the date when the first member
bank reported the account as fraud. Admittedly, there is no any prima
facie evidence produced by the defendants as to show that the
defendants bank followed time limit as specified in master circuler in
respect of declaring fraud to the plaintiff. It clearly goes to show that
defendants bank have not followed time limit as specified in master
circular. Even no any explanation is coming forth from defendants about
not following the time limit.
-- 12 of 20 --
13
27. Relying on such delay ,the learned counsel for plaintiff submitted
that considering the serious consequences on declaration as fraud, it
can be said that the time limit given in master circular is mandatory.
The learned counsel for defendants submitted that the issue of time
limit is in between defendants bank and R.B.I and R.B.I will take care of
not following the time limit. I have gone through the chapter of
consequences on declaration as fraud. Considering said serious nature
consequences it can be construed that the time limit given in master
circular is mandatory in nature. So, this issue will go against
defendants.
28. Rule 2.2 of master circular deals with classification of fraud. It
says that fraud have been classified as under based mainly on the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
a) Misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.
b) Fraudulent encashment through forged instrument,
manupulation of books of account or through fictitious accounts
and conversion of property.
c) Unauthorized credit facilities extended for reward or for illegal
gratification.
d) Cash shortages.
e) Cheating and forgery.
f) Fraudulent transactions involving foreign exchange.
g) Any other type of fraud not coming under the specific
heads as above.
29. Here, it is alleged by defendants that plaintiff has diverted the
funds to sisters Companies, he had used the loan amount for purpose
other than the purpose for which it was sanctioned. Plaintiff also
-- 13 of 20 --
14
siphoned off huge amount and there is falsification and manipulation of
accounts. As per reply of defendants all above detected in Forensic
Audit Report conducted by M/s.J.Singh and associates dated
20/09/2016. However, neither the copy of Forensic Audit Report is
supplied to plaintiff nor defendants have taken care to place it on
record to corroborate their contension about irregularities carried out
by plaintiff in Criminal nature as mentioned in master circular. So
without going through Forensic Audit Report the decision of defendants
declaring plaintiff as fraud cannot be justified. It is defendants
contention that plaintiff has diverted and siphoned off the funds. It is
also their contention that said fact is noticed in Forensic Audit. In such
circumstances, Forensic Audit report is the best and relevant evidence
to decide the issue. In absence of said report, the order of defendant
declaring plaintiff as fraud will not sustain. As such, plaintiff has made
out prima facie case.
30. Now next question is of following rule of natural justice i.e
opportunity of hearing to the other party. Here, as per master circular
no where it is mentioned that before taking such decision Banks should
give hearing the defaulter/ borrower. It is argued by learned counsel for
plaintiff that cosidering this procedural aspect and consequences on
declaration as fraud it is quite but natural and it is explicit that chance
of hearing should have been given to plaintiff. Here, there is one letter
issued by plaintiff to defendants calling upon to submit the documents
and material relied by bank in declaring plaintiff's account as fraud. It is
admitted position on record that despite said demand the defendants
have not provided document or Forensic Audit Report to plaintiff.
31. On the point of opportunity of hearing and rule of natural justice
the learned Counsel for plaintiff has relied on following citations.
-- 14 of 20 --
15
1) Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 345/2011 Finolex Industries Limited
& Anr. v/s. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Bombay High Court
dated 23/24 August, 2011.
2) Writ Petition No. 2483/2016 Parekh Alumix Limited v/s.
Allahbad Bank & Ors. with Writ Petition no. 2485/2016
Devanshu Praveen Desai v/s. Allahbad bank with Writ Petition
No. 2487/2016 Deepen Arun Parikh Vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors.
Bombay High Court dated 27.06.2017.
3) Civil Writ Petition No. 3307/2016 M/s. Oswan Apparels
Pvt.Ltd., Ludhiyana & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India, Ludhiyana &
Anr. Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 14/02/2017.
4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7488/2016 Moserbaer India Ltd.
v/s. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Anr. Rajeshthan at Jaipur
Bench Jaipur Dated 07.09.2016.
32. I have gone through all the citations. The ratio is that a
determination in regard to an entity being a fraud can only be made
after complience with the procedure laid down in master circular.
Absent complience with the procedural norms and upon a breach of
principals of natural justice, the decision would stand vitiated. It is
further observed that it is settled principal of law that the documents
that are relied upon by any authority in arriving at a conclusion must be
made available to the affected party to confirm to the principle of
natural justice. So also the party ought to have been afforded adequate
oppourunity to present their case. So considering above ratio, I am of
the opinion that opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to
plaintiff before taking decision of fraud. Therefore, the balance of
convenience lies in favour of plaintiff.
-- 15 of 20 --
16
33. In Citations at serial no.4 (Supra) in the case of Moserbae India
Limited it is observed that " An opportunity of hearing ought to be
effective hearing. Fair play demand that the documents/evidence on
which identification comittee 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 ." Similarly in other citation of M/s. Oswal Apparels Private
Limited (supra) it is observed that “ It is also settled principle of law
that the documents that are relied upon by any authority in arriving at a
conclusion must be made available to the affected party to confirm 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 . ” So considering above ratio, I am of opinion that
before taking decesion, the defendants bank ought to have given
opportunity of hearing to plaintiff / borrower. In absense of its, balance
of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff.
34. Here, plaintiff is not claiming the relief against the recovery
proceedings initiated by lenders Banks. The Ld. Cousel for plaintiff
fairly submitted that plaintiff is not making any grievance here about
the recovery proceeding initiated by defendants under various forums.
As per Ld. Cousel plaintiff is only seeking relief against declaration of
fraud being without following due procedure. As per the consequences
of declaration as fraud there is no bar for taking steps for recovery of
loan amount. It goes to show that defendants Bank can go ahead with
recovery proceedings. However , considering above discussion I am of
the opinion that prima facie there is material on record to show that
defendants have not followed due procedure before declaring plaintiff
account as fraud. Therefore, balance of convenience is in favour of
-- 16 of 20 --
17
plaintiff.
35. The Ld. Counsel for defendants relied on citation of Hon'ble Apex
court reported in (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 792. Said citation is
on the point of factors to be considered while granting temperory
injunction. It is observed that prim - facie case in favour of party seeking
relief is not enough. It must be shown that injury suffered by plaintiff
on refusal of temprory injunction would be irreparable. No doubt, while
granting injunction it is necessary to consider above mention factors.
Here, as per above discussions, prima facie case and balance of
convenience is in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, if defendants bank is
allowed to go ahead without following due procedure, then it amounts
to causing irreparable loss to plaintiff.
36. It is a matter of record that the consequences of declaration of
fraud are much serious in nature inclusive of penal consequences.
Therefore, without giving opportunity and without following the
procedure given in master circular, it is not expected to take such
decision. If it is allowed to go ahead, then it will cause irreparable loss
to plaintiff. As such, plaintiff has made out prima facie case to grant
relief in his favour. So with this discussion, I have answered point nos.
1 to 3 are in affirmative. Hence, I have proceed to pass following
order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 3076/2019 is hereby allowed.
2. Defendants bank personally or through their agents, servants or
representatives, offices and/or any person claiming through them are
hereby temporarily restrained from acting upon the defendants
declaration of the companies account as “fraud” and/or taking any
-- 17 of 20 --
18
coercive action on account of and/or basis of the said declaration.
Defendants or their representatives are restrained from publishing the
name of plaintiffs as fraud account till further order.
3. Defendants may submit their written statement in detail to expedite
hearing.
4. It is needless to say that defendants bank are at liberty to proceed
against the plaintiff regarding recovery proceedings, attachment, sale of
attachment property to recover the defaulted loan.
5. Cost as in cause.
6. N/M No. 3076/2019 is disposed off accordingly.
Date : -11/02/2020 (R.V.Kokare)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 11/02/2020
Transcribed on: 12/02/2020
Signed by HHJ: 18/02/2020
-- 18 of 20 --
19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
18/02/2020 5.00p.m. Mrs. V.V.Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri R.V.Kokare(CR
No.31)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
11/02/2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 18/02/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 18/02/2020
-- 19 of 20 --
20
-- 20 of 20 --