9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Frost International Limited vs. M/s. Milan Developers and Builders (P) Limited and another [ 2022 (4) TMI 195 - SUPREME COURT ], relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that it is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, where it was held that ' we hold that while the plaintiff has certain grievances arising from the MoU, against the defendants which may give rise to seek appropriate remedies in law, the aforesaid three declaratory reliefs sought in the plaint are barred by law. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.' This Court holds that if the plaintiffs have any grievance against the defendant, they can seek appropriate remedies i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant company and the beneficiary collections of all invoices financed under the facility are required to be credited to this account from which, repayments under the facility will be adjusted as mutually agreed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs repaid a sum of Rs.18,97,937/-. The plaintiffs could not get sale consideration for the materials sold by them, which incurred heavy loss in the business and that was the prime reason for not making further payment to the petitioner/defendant. There was no willful default of payment, but it was because of non-availability of funds due to non-realization of sale at the plaintiffs' end. However, all of a sudden, the defendant and their men came to the plaintiffs' company and had forcibly obtained 4 bl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.11.2017 and also given cheques towards security. However, the plaintiffs committed default and failed to repay the outstanding amount of Rs.60,52,645/- as on dated 01.03.2021, which prompted the defendant in presenting one of the cheques for enacashment, which was dishonoured at the instance of the plaintiffs and the defendant was constrained to issue notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 6. The learned counsel would also submit that the plaintiffs filed the suit with frivolous and baseless averments, which is a clear abuse of process of Court since the plaintiffs have given the cheques towards security for the loan in the event of failure of repayment on their part, however, they cleverly drafted the plaint w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for the respondents. 9. Though it is contended on behalf of the defendant that the cheques were given by the plaintiffs for the purpose of security of the loan transaction that had taken place, the plaintiffs filed the suit contending that the said cheques were forcefully taken from them. However, there is no denial from the plaintiffs to prove their contention that the cheques were forcefully taken from them. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of the judgment dated 13.04.2022 in Commercial OS.No.7 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Judge City Civil Court, Chennai. On perusal of the same, it appears that the petitioner herein filed a commercial suit in OS.No.7 of 2022 against the respondents herein and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ek relief in a suit which would frustrate the defendants from initiating a prosecution against plaintiff or seeking any other remedy available in law. In fact, the attempt made by the plaintiff to seek such a declaratory relief is, in substance, to seek a relief of injunction against the defendants, particularly defendant no.1, but framed it in the nature of a declaratory relief. In other words, the plaintiff has sought an injunction against defendant no.1 from seeking remedies in law on account of the cheque issued by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 56 lakhs being dishonoured. ..... ..... 37. Moreover, the right of defendant no.1 to prosecute the plaintiff owing to the dishonour of the cheque issued by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 56 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the plaintiff is due to it. 38. In the circumstances, we hold that while the plaintiff has certain grievances arising from the MoU, against the defendants which may give rise to seek appropriate remedies in law, the aforesaid three declaratory reliefs sought in the plaint are barred by law. Hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected in exercise of jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In our view, the revisional court was justified in rejecting the plaint but the High Court has erroneously set aside the order of the revisional court without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and has simply remanded the matter to the revisional court to reconsider the revision afresh on the premise that the revisional court did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
