[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
State Bank Of India vs M/S. Npt Offset Press Private Limited on 19 January, 2026
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
2026:MHC:216
A.No. 4472 of 2024
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
A No. 4472 of 2024
in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.77 of 2024
State Bank of India,
SME Siruthozhil Branch – Chennai,
Represented by its Assistant General Manager,
No.1, 5th Floor, KRM Towers, Harrington Road,
Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.
..Applicant/Defendant
Vs
M/s. NPT Offset Press Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director
Mr.Vivek Sachdev, No.17, 4th lane,
Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.
..Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer : Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules
Read With Order VII Rule 1 of the CPC Read With Section 11 of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to reject the suit in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.77 of
2024 since there is a direct bar under Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015.
For Applicant: Mr. M.L.Ganesh
For Respondent: Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Advocate
for Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
A.No. 4472 of 2024
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
ORDER
The plaintiff had availed of credit facilities from the defendant bank. It is
common ground between the parties that the account became a Non-Performing
Asset (NPA) on 31.12.2008. The defendant instituted proceedings before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Chennai (DRT- I) under the Recovery of Debts
and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (the RDB Act) on 23.01.2015 for recovery of a sum
of Rs.21.76 crores as on 21.01.2015 with further interest from the date of the
original application. The said original application was heard and an order dated
30.07.2018 was issued holding that a sum of Rs.9,63,29,570/- was due and
payable as on 30.07.2018 and directing that interest be applied on the said sum.
The defendant herein was directed to file a fresh statement of account by
applying interest at 11% per annum from the date of filing of the original
application till the date of realisation.
2. An application was filed by the plaintiff herein alleging non-
compliance with the direction to submit the statement of account. The said
application was disposed of by order dated 14.09.2020 directing the bank to
furnish copies of the statement of accounts. Upon receipt of the statement of
accounts pursuant to the said order, the plaintiff was dissatisfied with such
statement and consider the same to be erroneous and inflated. Therefore,
another miscellaneous application (MA.No.26 of 2020) was filed. This
application was disposed of by order dated 29.07.2021 taking note of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
remittance made in terms of an OTS scheme by the plaintiff. The said order was
carried in appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). A
conditional order was passed by the DRAT in the said appeal. It appears that
such conditional order was not complied with by the plaintiff. The present suit
was instituted in the above mentioned facts and circumstances seeking multiple
remedies, including declaration that the reckoning of the interest after the NPA
date is invalid and illegal and a declaration that the ledger outstanding amount
of Rs.425.44 crores is in violation of the SBI OTS 2017 scheme. The plaintiff
has also prayed for consequential monetary remedies.
3. After entering appearance in the suit, the defendant bank has applied
for rejection of the plaint.
4. The contentions of Mr.M.L.Ganesh in support of the application to
reject the plaint may be summarised as under:
(i) The suit is barred under Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 (the Commercial Courts Act) read with Section 18 of the RDB Act.
(ii) The plaintiff seeks enforcement of the SBI OTS 2017 scheme. Neither
a suit nor a writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of an OTS scheme,
which is contractual. The judgment of the Supreme Court in The Bijnor Urban
Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor & others v. Meenal Agarwal & others,
Comp.A.No.7411 of 2021, dated 15.12.2021 is relied upon in support of this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
contention.
(iii) Being dissatisfied with the statement of account filed by the
defendant bank, the plaintiff filed M.A.No.26 of 2020 before the DRT-I. The
request for relief was declined by order dated 29.07.2021. The plaintiff carried
the matter in appeal before the DRAT and failed to comply with the conditional
order issued therein. In those circumstances, the plaintiff cannot re-agitate the
matter before this Court.
(iv) The plaintiff did not avail of the SBI OTS scheme 2017 and availed
of the SBI OTS scheme 2018. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek relief in
respect of the SBI OTS scheme 2017.
(v) After availing of the SBI OTS scheme 2018 and making payments in
terms thereof, the defendant bank filed a full satisfaction memo and proceedings
in O.A.No.22 of 2015 were terminated. Consequently, the defendant bank did
not enforce the order dated 30.07.2018 of the DRT-I. The present suit is,
therefore, not maintainable as there was a full and final settlement.
5. The contentions of Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned senior counsel for the
plaintiff, in response may be summarised as under:
(i) The order dated 30.07.2018 of the DRT-I records categorically that the
fulfilment or non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of OTS schemes does
not fall within the scope of adjudication of the debt and that it is left open to the
parties to agitate the same before the competent forum.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
(ii) The order dated 30.07.2018 of the DRT-I recognised that the
defendant bank had not filed a proper statement of account and, therefore,
directed the bank to do so within 15 days.
(iii) The bank disclosed that it had charged interest for the period after the
account became NPA only in October & November, 2018. The cause of action
for the suit arose only upon the plaintiff becoming aware of the manner in
which interest was computed by the defendant bank.
(iv) Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the
CPC) applies to a consent decree issued by a civil court and not to orders of the
DRT.
6. The question that falls for consideration on the basis of the rival
contentions is whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on any of the applicable
grounds under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In relevant part, Order VII Rule
11 CPC reads as under:
“11. Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected
in the following cases:—
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
....
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the
plaint to be barred by any law;”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
As is evident from the text of Order VII Rule 11, the applicant should establish
that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or that the suit appears to be
barred by law on the basis of a statement in the plaint. The settled legal position
is that an application under Order VII Rule 11 is, therefore, required to be
adjudicated by examining the plaint and documents filed therewith and not with
reference to the written statement or the defences raised therein.
7. On perusal of the application for rejection of plaint, it is evident that
the application was filed primarily on the ground that the suit is barred by law.
The said contention has been raised by relying on Section 11 of the Commercial
Courts Act, which reads as under:
“11. Bar of jurisdiction of Commercial Courts and
Commercial Divisions.—Notwithstanding anything contained
in this Act, a Commercial Court or a Commercial Division
shall not entertain or decide any suit, application or
proceedings relating to any commercial dispute in respect of
which the jurisdiction of the civil court is either expressly or
impliedly barred under any other law for the time being in
force.”
The language of Section 11 reveals that the Commercial Court or the
Commercial Division should not entertain or decide a suit, if the jurisdiction of
the civil court is either expressly or impliedly barred by any other law. Hence, it
becomes necessary to examine whether the present suit is barred by any other
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
8. The proceedings before the DRT were instituted under the RDB Act.
Section 18 thereof prescribes a bar on the jurisdiction of courts, other than the
Supreme Court and the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India. The said provision, in relevant part, reads as
under:
“18. Bar of jurisdiction.—On and from the appointed
day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to
exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the
Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction
under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to
the matters specified in section 17.”
It is clear from the text of Section 18 that the ouster of jurisdiction applies to
matters falling within the remit of Section 17 of the RDB Act. Section 17(1) is
relevant and is set out below:
“17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals.—
(1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day,
the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide
applications from the banks and financial institutions for
recovery of debts due to such banks and financial
institutions.”
Thus, the Tribunals constituted under the RDB Act are empowered to entertain
and decide applications from banks and financial institutions for the recovery of
debts due to such banks and financial institutions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
9. In this case, on perusal of the plaint, it follows that the grievance of the
plaintiff and the remedies requested pertain to the alleged erroneous
computation of interest after the account turned NPA while computing the
amount due and payable under the SBI OTS 2017 scheme; the alleged unlawful
cancellation of the OTS offer; and the alleged consequential monetary losses
incurred by the plaintiff. While considering contentions pertaining to the alleged
non-compliance with the terms of the SBI OTS 2017 scheme, DRT-I recorded
as under in paragraph 22.8 of order dated 30.07.2018:
“22.8 I have carefully perused the aforesaid rulings.
The issue involved in the cases above, was non-consideration
of OTS Scheme by the Bank of Financial Institution, unlike
the present case, where the issue involved is whether or not
the defendants have complied the terms of OTS schemes. That
apart, the fact situation referred to in the aforesaid rulings
and the case on hand are entirely different. In the considered
opinion of the Tribunal, the question involved in this OA is
not the refusal to enforce OTS schemes, supra, by the
applicant bank despite the alleged compliance, but the very
compliance of the terms of OTS by the defendants. Any
enquiry as regards fulfilment or non-fulfilment of terms and
conditions of OTS Schemes by the parties, in the considered
opinion of the Tribunal, do not fall within the scope of
adjudication of debt, given the scheme of RDB Act. Therefore,
the Tribunal is not inclined to express any opinion on the
respective contentions of both sides, insofar as they relate to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
compliance of the terms of SBI-OTS Schemes 2016 and 2017
and it is left open to the parties to agitate the same before a
competent Forum, if they are so advised. ”
10. The above extract reveals that DRT-I concluded that fulfilment or
non-fulfilment of the terms and conditions of the OTS scheme by the parties
does not fall within the scope of adjudication under Section 17 of the RDB Act.
Therefore, the DRT expressly left it open to the parties to agitate the matter
before the competent forum. Considering the ambit of Section 17, the above
conclusion of the DRT-I and the nature of the suit, including remedies claimed
therein, I conclude that the suit is not barred on account of Sections 17 and 18
of the RDB Act read with Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act.
11. Learned counsel for the defendant also contended that the plaintiff
availed of the SBI OTS 2018 scheme and that remittance was made in terms
thereof. Upon receipt of remittance from the plaintiff, he pointed out that a full
satisfaction memo was filed before the DRT-I and proceedings in O.A.No.22 of
2015 were terminated. Having opted for this course of action, learned counsel
contended that the suit is not maintainable. Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC
incorporates an express bar to a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the
compromise was not lawful. The said provision is applicable only in relation to
the compromise of a suit under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, and not to a
settlement recorded by the DRT.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
12. In response to a question as to whether an analogous provision exists
in the RDB Act or the rules framed thereunder, learned counsel for the
defendant referred to Rule 12(8) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure)
Rules, 1993 and the same reads as under:
“12. Filing of written statement and other documents
by the defendant and by the applicant as a reply to the written
statement:
.. ..
(8) Where a defendant makes an admission of the full
or part of the amount of debt due to a bank or financial
institution, the Tribunal shall order such defendant, to pay
such amount, to the extent of the admission, by the applicant
within a period of thirty days from the date of such order,
failing which the Tribunal may issue a certificate in
accordance with section 19 of the Act to the extent of amount
of debt due admitted by the defendant. ”
As is evident from the language of the sub-rule, it prescribes that the Tribunal
shall direct the defendant to pay the amount admitted as the debt due to the bank
or financial institution concerned and further enables the Tribunal to issue a
certificate to the extent of the debt admitted by the borrower. Rule 12(8) does
not incorporate a bar on the institution of proceedings pursuant to the issuance
of an order or certificate thereunder. Undoubtedly, even in the absence of a
provision analogous to Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the CPC, it is open to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
defendant to plead accord and satisfaction as a defence to an action. Such
defence, however, cannot form the basis of an application to reject the plaint on
the ground that the suit is barred by law.
13. A brief discussion on whether the plaint discloses or fails to disclose a
cause of action is warranted. In the plaint, at paragraph 71 thereof, the plaintiff
has set out in detail the cause of action. At paragraph 67 thereof, the plaintiff
has set out the basis of computation of the monetary claim made in consequence
of the declaratory relief claimed in the suit.
14. In substance, it appears that the plaintiff’s grievance is that it would
not have been liable to make any further payment if its dues had been computed
in accordance with the SBI OTS 2017 scheme. By virtue of failing to comply
with the terms of the said scheme, the plaintiff’s case is that it had suffered a
monetary loss of Rs.11.92 crores + 2.62 crores along with interest thereon. At
this juncture, one is not concerned with the sustainability of either the
declaratory or monetary remedies claimed by the plaintiff. The contentions of
learned counsel for the defendant that these claims relate to a proposed
contractual arrangement; that the SBI OTS 2017 scheme was not followed
through on account of the plaintiff’s failure to adhere to the terms thereof; that
accord and satisfaction was reached under the SBI OTS scheme 2018; and that,
in the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot claim remedies for alleged losses on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
account of alleged non-compliance with the terms of the SBI OTS scheme 2017
would warrant close consideration while determining the sustainability of the
suit. Considering the fact that the sustainability of the action is not material
while considering and disposing of an application to reject the plaint, the said
contentions do not carry the defendant far.
15. Therefore, the defendant has failed to establish that the plaint does not
disclose a cause of action or that the suit is barred by law. Consequently, the
application fails. For the avoidance of doubt, it is clarified that the dismissal of
this application will not stand in the way of the defendant filing applications
under other provisions of law, including but not limited to Order XIII-A of the
Commercial Courts Act.
19-01-2026
Index : Yes/No (1/2)
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.77 of 2024
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kj
in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.77 of 2024
19-01-2026
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 07:21:35 pm )
