Madras High Court
M/S. Kamachi Industries Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 29 October, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.462 of 2018
and O.A.Nos.663 OF 2018, A.Nos.7192 of 2018,
3616 and 4998 of 2019
1. M/s. Kamachi Industries Ltd.
Rep by its Managing Director,
Mr. Sardarmal Kothari ,
ABC Trade Centre, 3rd Floor,
50, Old No. 39, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002
2. Mr. Sardarmal Kothari,
Managing Director,
M/s. Kamachi Industries Ltd.
No. 10, Sylvan Lodge Colony,
1st Cross Road, Kilpauk,
Chennai - 600 010. ... Plaintiffs
Versus
1. State Bank of India
Industrial Finance Branch,
KRM Plaza, Harrington Road, Ground Floor,
Chennai 600 031.
2. Andhra Bank
Main Branch,
48/39 Wavoo Mansion
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
3. Canara Bank
Spencer Tower I, Ground Floor, 770, Anna Salai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
Chennai - 600 002
4. Union Bank of India,
17, G.A. Road,
Old Washermanpet,
Chennai 600 021
5. Punjab National Bank
150, Luz Church Road,
Mylapore, Chennai
6. Bank of India,
IV Floor, Tarapore Towers,
826, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002
7. State Bank of India
Stressed Asset Management Branch
No. 32, Red Cross Building, 2nd Floor,
Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ...Respondents
Prayer: Civil suit filed under Order (IV) Rule 1of the O.S.Rules read
with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., praying for the following judgment and
decree
a) specifically perform the understanding dated 05.03.2018 recorded on
12.03.2018 between the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 agreed at
Chennai;
b) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its men, agents,
assignees, executors, etc., from interfering with the plaintiffs' business
activities in furtherance of the understanding dated 05.03.2018 recorded
on 12.03.2018 between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6.
c) for cost of the suit.
For Plaintiff : M/s.M.Narendran
for M/s.King & Patridge
Resolution Professional
for M/s.S.R.Raghunathan
For Defendants : Mr.A.V.Arun for D1 and D7
Mr.Varun Srinivasan for D2 to D6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3
JUDGMENT
The suit filed by Company which is now under the teeth of
liquidation facing proceedings before NCLT. The suit was filed as a
commercial dispute before this Court on 03rd July 2018 in connection
with financial transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant Banks,
which are nationalised.
2. Subsequent to filing of the suit, it is now brought to the
notice of this Court that proceeding has been initiated against the
plaintiff for liquidation before NCLT and the matter is taken up by
NCLT in IPAB No.883 of 2019. After deliberation, NCLT has appointed
Resolution Professional on 19.02.2020.
3.Mr.Narendran, learned counsel for Resolution Professional
submitted that on appointment of Resolution Professional, the first
plaintiff which is the Company in the liquidation is represented by
Resolution Professional and all financial disputes in connection with the
first defendant are to be resolved only by NCLT in the light of Section
231 of the Indian Bankruptcy Act and further more, Section 11 of the
Commercial Courts Act also debars this Court from entertaining disputes
which are excluded from the purview of Civil Courts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
VRI
4.On considering the above subsequent development after
filing the suit, this Court is of the view that after matter been seized off
by NCLT and on appointment of Resolution Professional, Civil Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the suit is dismissed
with liberty to the parties to agitate their cause before NCLT.
5.Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act bar entertaining
disputes which are expressly or impliedly barred under any other law. In
the light of the above fact, the present suit cannot be kept on board in this
Court. Hence, the suit is dismissed and all the connected applications are
closed. The parties are at liberty to agitate their respective cause before
NCLT in the pending proceedings in IPAB No.883 of 2019. Since the
suit is dismissed on the point of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs are entitled for
refund of Court fee on appropriate application.
29.10.2021
vri
C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.462 of 2018
and O.A.Nos.663 OF 2018,
A.Nos.7192 of 2018,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3616 and 4998 of 2019
