Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Kaaiser Oils Private Limited & Ors vs Allahabad Bank & Ors on 30 August, 2017 HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya AND The Hon'ble Justice Shivakant Prasad F.A.T. 166 of 2017 with CAN 2763 of 2017 with F.M.A. 648 of 2017 With CAN 2764 of 2017 with CAN 4475 of 2017 Kaaiser Oils Private Limited & Ors. versus Allahabad Bank & Ors. For the Appellants : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anirudho Mitra, Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Ms. Saamidheni Das, Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay. For the Respondent : Mr. Joy Saha, Mr. Om Narayan Rai. Heard On : 18th August, 2017 & 30th August, 2017. Judgement On : 30th August, 2017. Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. Two appeals were filed by the plaintiffs/appellants against the bank/defendant/respondent. One of such appeals being FAT 166 of 2017 is directed against an order being no. 14 dated 28th February, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Additional Court at Burdwan, in Title Suit No. 19 of 2016; by which the suit was dismissed partially as the part of the relief claimed in the suit was found to be not maintainable due to the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The said order was passed on an application taken out by the defendant bank under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Trial Judge while holding that the suit is not partially maintainable held that the relief which the plaintiffs have claimed for damages and/or compensation for the wrong or misdeed on the part of the bank is maintainable. As such, the suit was kept pending for consideration for that part of the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the said suit. The other appeal being FMA 648 of 2017 is directed against an order being no. 13 dated 28th February, 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court at Burdwan, in the very same Title Suit being Title Suit No. 19 of 2016. By the impugned order, the application for temporary injunction which was filed by the plaintiffs/appellants was rejected on contest. The plaintiffs felt aggrieved. Hence, the plaintiffs/appellants have filed this First Miscellaneous Appeal. Since the fate of the First Miscellaneous Appeal is dependent on the fate of the aforesaid regular First Appeal, this Court heard both the appeals and has decided to dispose of both the appeals simultaneously one after another. Re: F.A.T No 166 of 2017 Let us first of all consider the merit of the First Appeal in the facts of the present case. The plaintiffs approached the defendant bank for a loan. Loan was sanctioned. Subsequently, the plaintiffs again approached the said bank for restructuring loan account. The defendant/bank agreed to enhance the loan limit as per the revised proposal of the plaintiffs/appellants partially and also allowed the plaintiffs/appellants to raise further loan from a consortium bank. While the plaintiffs tried to get loan from the other consortium bank, the other consortium bank refused to give loan to the plaintiffs/appellants as the defendant bank declared the account of the plaintiffs/appellants company as 'Substandard Account. Problem started from this juncture between the parties. Initially the plaintiffs filed a writ petition before this Court praying for the following reliefs : (a) A writ of certiorari quashing and/or setting aside the restructuring made by the respondent bank in May, 2012 dehors the banking norms stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India vide its Master Circular being prudential norms on income recognition, asset classification and provision pertaining to advances dated July 02, 2012 and general guidelines on Sick Micro and Small Enterprises dated November 1, 2012. (b) A writ of or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondent bank, their men, agent