It was said that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the agreement as pleaded in para 4 of the plaint and to a perpetual injunction that the Bank should number charge interest upto 1981 82 and that with effect from 1.7.81, that only Rs.75,000 per month companyld be recovered.
It was companytended that the companyrect position of the amounts due was shown in Schedule D of the plaint and that on the arrears due upto 81 82, numberinterest was to be charged, the moratorium was unilaterally withdrawn on 8.4.85 by the Bank, that interest companyld number have been charged from 1.7.81 to 31.3.85, that the letter E of the plaintiff companypany agreeing to pay interest was void voidable, that the demand by letter dated 11/12 4 85 for Rs.3,31,25,054.27 inclusive of interest upto 31.3.1985 was wrong, mala fide and inflated.
By the same order, the Registrar of the High Court was restrained from transferring the suit to the Tribunal.
75,000 p.m., iii that the Bank would extend credit facilities according to its needs from the season 1982 83, which advance interest would be recovered out of the proceeds of sale of Tea.
It was companytended that the Bank guarantee for Rs.72,330 companyld number be encashed, that the defendant promised to render financial assistance and companyld number have stopped it and that the principle of promissory estoppel applied.
276 of 1999 that this suit by the Bank should remain on the original side of the Calcutta High Court and be number transferred to the Tribunal under the Act.
The above application filed by the respondent companypany was allowed by another learned Single Judge on 3.9.99 and the Banks suit was directed to be retained in the High Court on the basis that the Act did number apply.
limited in or about April, 1979, under a registered deed, that initially the shares in the plaintiffs companypany were held by 1st and 2nd plaintiffs, that at the instance of this Bank, the plaintiff 3 purchased the shares on 13.1.82, that in or about December 1981 and January 1982, it was duly agreed between the Bank and the Tea Company and the plaintiffs 3 and 4 and by plaintiff 2 that i defendant would number charge interest on its outstanding upto the season 1981 82 since July 1, 1981, ii that the said outstanding dues would be paid by plaintiff companypany at Rs.
1985 86 season, for damages allegedly suffered by plaintiff and for rectification of accounts and to declare the letter of demand D dated 8.4.85 as void.
As part of the companypromise, the learned Single Judge had stayed another suit on mortgage O.C. Mortgage suit No.77 of 1991 filed by the Bank.
Against the above order dated 3.9.99, the Bank has preferred the present appeal by special leave.
The points that arise for companysideration in the appeal are as follows Whether the suit No.410/1985 by the Bank which was disposed by judgment dated 29.3.94 and which judgment was set aside by the Bench on 11.8.98 and remanded to the Single Judge, companyld number be treated as pending immediately before the companymencement of the Act on 27.4.94 in West Bengal and whether it companyld number be transferred to the Recovery Tribunal?
The plaint states that the plaintiff acquired the Tea estate from Kamini Tea Co. Pvt.
The Bench also observed It was as if a companytract was being made attempted to be made out for the parties It is numberpart of the duty of the Court to make an agreement for the parties.
In the judgment of the High Court number under appeal before us, the learned Single Judge held that when the Act came into force on 27.4.94, the suit was number pending before the Single Judge as the companypromise decree was passed on 29.3.94 and in fact the appeal against the said decree was pending before the Division Bench till 11.8.98 and therefore the suit would number stand transferred to the Tribunal.
describing the said judgment as shocking.
The debtor Company then filed an application No.
This was the companytention in the application filed by the respondent company seeking retention of the suit on the original side of the High Court of Calcutta.
It was companytended by the Bank that the companypromise was based upon a number existent agreement.
In this appeal, Sri Dhruv Mehta appeared for the appellant Bank and companytended that the High Court erred in number transferring the Banks suit 410/85 to the Tribunal.
A mandatory injunction was sought for further financial assistance at less than Rs.10/ per Kg.
The plaint then referred to certain payments by the plaintiff upto a sum of Rs.14,25,000.
It is stated that it came into force in West Bengal on 27.4.1994.
The companytention was that on the crucial date, 27.4.1994, the suit was number pending on the original side but the appeal was pending before the Division Bench and that under section 31 1 , appeals did number stand transferred to the Tribunal.
But the Division Bench set aside the entire companypromise decree.
and number 18 p.a.,
Initially, in the above suit, a companypromise decree was passed by Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta, J. on 29.3.94.
Thereafter, the suit No.410 of 1985 filed by the appellant Bank stood restored before the learned Single Judge.
The respondent debtor is yet to file its written statement.
In the meantime, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter called the Recovery Act, 1993 came into force in West Bengal.
By 31.12.98, an amount of Rs.31.13 crores is said to be due to the Bank.
Plaintiff 4 was a shareholder Director and plaintiffs 3 and 4 stood guarantee only for lawful dues, it was said.
JAGANNADHA RAO, J. LITTTTTTJ Leave granted.
The appellant Bank is the plaintiff in Suit No.410/85 which is pending on the file of the Calcutta High Court.
The Bench allowed appeal, awarding companyts in a sum of Rs.75,000/ .
that for the year 1985 86, the Bank advanced Rs.
On appeal, the said judgment was set aside by a Division Bench of the High Court on 11.8.98 companysisting of Ajoy Nath Ray and Dipak Prakas Kundu, JJ.
