http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4443 of 2006
PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF INDIA
RESPONDENT:
RANJAN CHEMICALS LTD. and ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/10/2006
BENCH:
H.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘bank’) challenging the order of the High Court of Patna affirming
an order of Subordinate Judge- I, Patna in Suit No. 168 of 2001 refusing to
transfer the suit for being tried jointly with O.A. No. 18 of 2002 filed by
the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. The bank sought the
transfer on the basis that the suit was in the nature of a counter claim to
its claim and arose out of the same cause of action as the one put in suit
by the bank before the Tribunal. The bank originally granted a term loan to
M/s. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘company’) of
Rs.30 lakhs. The bank further extended a cash credit facility to the
company. The company failed to meet its obligations under the account.
Thereupon the bank issued a notice calling upon the company to repay the
amounts due under the loan transactions and to close its accounts. On
receipt of that notice, the company filed a suit before the Court of
Subordinate Judge -I, of Patna as Suit No. 168 of 2001 claiming that the
bank had failed to fulfil its obligations while making available the cash
credit facility and has not honoured its commitments in time to release the
working capital which was agreed to as part of a rehabilitation process of
the company and because of the delay on the part of the bank in fulfilling
its obligations, the company had suffered losses leading to the Board of
Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, recommending its winding up and in
view of the fact that the losses were incurred because of the failure of
the bank to fulfil its obligations, the company was entitled to recover a
sum of Rs. 1739.15 lacs as damages with interest thereon. The bank in its
turn approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under The Recovery
of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 by way of O.A.
No. 18 of 2002 filed under Section 19(1) of that Act.
3. In the suit, the bank moved an application praying that the said suit be
transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal for being tried jointly with O.A.
No. 18 of 2002 pending before the Tribunal, since both proceedings arose
out of the same cause of action, namely, the grant of a loan and the
providing of a cash credit facility by the bank to the company and that the
suit by the company was really in the nature of a counter claim or set off,
as against the claim of the bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 833.06 lakhs
on the loan account. The prayer of the bank was resisted by the company
contending that the cause of action for its suit was different from the
cause of action put in action by the bank in the Recovery Tribunal, that
the suit for damages was not in the nature of a counter claim or set off,
but that it was an independent action that the Civil Court alone had
jurisdiction to try and that the transfer prayed for was not liable to be
granted. The Trial Court took the view that the suit filed by the company
did not come with the purview of Section 19(9) of the Recovery of Debts Act
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
and it could not be treated as a counter claim in O.A. No. 18 of 2002 and
hence the prayer was liable to be rejected. On a challenge by the bank of
the above said order before the High Court of Patna, that Court held that
there was no bar created by the Recovery of Debts Act or any other law,
which could prevent a person from filing a suit in the civil Court or
making any claim, much less, one for damages which was even otherwise,
completely alien to the claim based on the loan made by the bank before the
Tribunal. Since the suit was not thit by Section 18 of the Recovery of
Debts Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court was not affected and the
Court had full authority to proceed with the suit for damages which was
filed earlier and which was unconnected with the loan transaction. The
Revision was thus dismissed. This order is challenged in this appeal.
4. It appears to us that the High Court and the Trial Court asked
themselves the wrong question. The question was not whether the civil Court
had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or to continue with the suit. The
question was whether in the nature of the respective claims arising out of
the loan transaction, it was just and proper to order a joint trial of the
two causes and whether there was anything in the Recovery of Debts Act
which prevented the Debt Recovery Tribunal from entertaining the claim made
by the plaintiff in the suit. A question of joint trial arises when the
rival parties file independent actions but’. based on the same cause of
action; for enforcement of rights or obligations springing out of that
cause of action. Here, the bank had approached the Recovery Tribunal for
recovery of amounts paid on the basis of
the loan transaction and the cash credit facility extended to the company.
The company had gone to the Civil Court claiming that it had suffered
damages because the bank had failed to fulfil its obligations based on the
cash credit facilities and the rehabilitation package extended to it. The
question, therefore, was whether it could be said that both claims arose
out of the same cause of action giving rise to different rights of action.
The elements of a cause of action are: first, the breach of duty owing by
one person to another and; second, the damage resulting to the other from
the breach, or the fact of combination of facts which gives rise to a right
to sue. Viewed thus, it cannot but be said that both claims have arisen out
of the same transaction or out of the same relationship that came into
existence between the bank and the company and the alleged breach of
obligations by one or the other. We have, therefore, no hesitation in
holding that the two actions have sprung out of the same cause of action.
5. Then the question is whether the cause of action put in suit by the
company could be considered to be one in the nature of a set off or a
counter claim within the meaning of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts
Act. It is clear from sub sections 6 to 11 of Section 19 of the Act that
the Recovery Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain a claim of set off
or a counter claim arising out of the same cause of action and has also the
power to treat the counter claim as a cross suit. Therefore, if the claim
of the company in the suit partakes the character of a cross action founded
on the same cause of action, the same could be tried by the Debt Recovery
Tribunal. In United Bank of India, Calcutta v. Abhijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd.
and Ors., [2000] 7 SCC 357, this Court interpreted the expression counter
claim in sub Sections 8 to 11 of Section 19 as including even a claim made
in an independent suit and a claim for damages based on the same
transaction as being broadly a plea of set off falling under sub Sections 6
and 7 of Section 19 of the Act. With respect, we see no reason to differ
from the reasoning and conclusion therein in that regard. It is therefore
clear that the claim made by the company in the suit filed by it could be
considered as a claim for set off and/or as a counter claim within the
meaning of Section 19 of the Act.
6. Even otherwise, after the amendment of Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of
Civil Procedure by Act 104 of 1976, for maintaining a counter-claim, the
cross action need not even arise out of the same cause of action or be
intrinsically connected with the cause of action sued upon. Any right or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the
plaintiff can be made the subject matter of a counter-claim. Section 19(8)
of the Act is also on the same lines. Therefore, there can be no objection
to treating a claim in favour of the Company arising out of the Loan
transaction and/or rehabilitation package as a counter-claim in the
application filed by the Bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the company, relied on the decision in Indian
Bank v. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd., [2006] 5 SCC 72 in support of the
preposition that the Civil Court continued to have jurisdiction to try the
suit filed by the company and it could not be said that the subject matter
of the bank’s claim before; the Recovery Tribunal and the suit filed by the
company against the bank are inextricably connected, in that the decision
in one, would affect the decision in the other. He also urged that unless
both the parties agreed for the independent suit being considered as a
counter claim in the-bank’s application before the Tribunal, the suit could
not be transferred to the Tribunal. Counsel particularly relied upon the
discussion in paragraph 9 of the judgment suggesting that when the claim of
the bank was for an ascertained sum due from the borrower and the claim of
the borrower was for damages, it could not be said that there was any
connection between the subject matter of the two actions and that a
decision in one would depend on the other. Nor could there be any
apprehension of different and inconsistent results if the application and
the suit are tried and decided separately by different fora.
8. Their Lordships have held that the subject matter of the suit and the
proceeding before the Tribunal were in no way connected, but it appears to
us that the two litigations arise out of the same transaction or series of
transactions between the Bank and the Company. Even if, as observed by
their Lordships, a counter claim in the application by the Bank before the
Tribunal was not the only remedy available to the Company but an option was
available to the Company to sue, and the Company has exercised that option
by filing a suit, it does not in any manner affect the power of the Court
to order a joint trial of the application and the suit in the Debt Recovery
Tribunal provided the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain
the action of the Company. What is relevant to note is that the claim of
the Company in the suit could have been maintained as a counter-claim in
the application of the bank, even if it did not arise out of the same cause
of action. There is no warrant for curtailing the power of the Court to
order joint trial by introducing a restriction to the effect that a joint
trial can be ordered only if there was consent by both sides. The power
inherent in the Court on well accepted principles to order a joint trial,
does not depend upon the volition of the parties but it depends upon the
convenience of trial, saving of time and expenses and the avoidance of
duplicating at least a part of the evidence leading to saving of time and
money.
9. On going through the application filed by the bank and the plaint filed
by the company in the present case, we find that both causes of action
arise out of a cash credit facility extended by the bank to the company and
while the claim by the bank is for recovery of amounts due under that
account, the suit of the company is for recovery of compensation based on
the alleged failure of the bank to fulfil its obligations under the cash
credit facility in time and in a meaningful manner. Obviously, if the
company is able to establish its claim, the amount that may be awarded to
it by way of damages has necessarily to be set off against any amount that
may be found due to the bank on the basis of the loan transaction including
the cash credit facility extended by it to the company. The decree to the
one or the other would depend upon an ascertainment of the rights and
obligations arising out of the loan transaction and the state of the loan
account. We are therefore of the view that the two claims are inextricably
inter linked. The consequences arising out of the respective claims are
referable to the cause of action arising out of the vary transactions
between the bank and the company. We have already indicated that the claim
of the company is in essence a claim for set off and/or a counter claim,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
which could be tried by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in view of the amended
Section 19 of the Act.
10. A joint trial can be ordered by the court if it appears to it that some
common question of law or fact arises in both proceedings or that the right
to relief claimed in them are in respect of or arise out of the same
transaction or series of transactions or that for some other reason it is
desirable to make an order for joint trial. Where the plaintiff in one
action is the same person as the defendant in another action, if one action
can be ordered to stand as a counter claim in the consolidated action, a
joint trial can be ordered. An order for joint trial is considered to be
useful in that, it will save the
expenses of two attendance by counsel and witnesses and the trial judge
will be enabled to try the two actions at the same time and take common
evidence in respect of both the claims. If therefore ‘the claim made by the
Company can be tried as a counter claim by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the
Court can order joint trial on the basis of the above considerations. It
does not appear to be necessary that all the questions or issues that arise
should be common to both actions before a joint trial can be ordered. It
will be sufficient if some of the issues are common and some of the
evidence to be let in is also common, especially when the two actions arise
out of the same transaction or series of transactions.
11. A joint trial is ordered when a Court finds that the ordering of such a
trial, would avoid separate overlapping evidence being taken in the two
causes put in suit and it will be more convenient to try them together in
the interests of the parties and in the interests of an effective trial of
the causes. This power inheres in the Court as an inherent power. It is not
possible to accept the argument that every time the Court transfers a suit
to another court or orders a joint trial, it has to have the consent of the
parties. A Court has the power in an appropriate case to transfer a suit
for being tried with another if the circumstances warranted and justified
it. In the light of our conclusion that the claim of the company in the
suit could be considered to be a claim for set off and a counter claim
within the meaning of Section 19 of the Act, the only question is whether
in the interests of justice, convenience of parties and avoidance of
multiplicity of proceedings, the suit should be transferred to the Debt
Recovery Tribunal for being tried jointly with the application filed by the
bank as a cross suit. Obviously, the proceedings before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal could not be transferred to the civil Court since that is a
proceeding before a Tribunal specially constituted by the Act and the same
has to be tried only in the manner provided by that Act and by the Tribunal
created by that Act. Therefore, the only other alternative would be to
transfer the suit to the Tribunal in case that is found warranted or
justified.
12. It is clear that in both proceedings what are involved are, the nature
of the loan transaction and the cash credit facility extended, the
relationship that has spring out of the transactions, the right and
obligations arising out of them, their breach if any, who is responsible
for the breach and its extent. The same basic evidence will have to be
taken in both the proceedings. The accounts of the bank will have to be
scrutinized not only to ascertain the sum, if any, due to the bank but also
to ascertain as to when and in what manner the cash credit facility was
permitted to be availed of by the company. Of course, evidence will have to
be taken on whether there was any violation of conditions or laches on the
part of the bank in fulfilling its obligations causing damage to the
company. At least a part of the evidence will be common. Duplication of
evidence could be avoided if the two actions are tried together. If a
decree is granted to the bank on the basis of its accounts, and the
damages, if any, is decreed in favour of the company, a set off could be
directed and an ultimate order or decree passed in favour of the bank or
the company. In such a situation, we are of the view that this is a fit
case where the two actions should be ordered to be tried together.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
13. In this view, we are satisfied that the trial court and the High Court
have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by law in refusing
to transfer the suit to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna. They have not
considered the question whether it will be fit and proper to order a joint
trial of the two actions. We find that it is not only fit and proper but
also just and necessary to have the two causes tried together. Hence, we
allow this appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court and that of
the trial Court, transfer Money Suit No. 168 of 2001 from the file of
Subordinate Judge -I, Patna to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for being
treated as a counter-claim by way of a cross suit and for being jointly
tried and disposed of with OA No. 18 of 2002 pending on its file.
14. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to suffer their respective
costs.
