Today is fixed for hearing of the MA 65/2021 filed by the Branch Manager of ICICI Bank and ICICI (Asset Division- Lending authority ) whereby the petitioners have alleged that the Complaint Case being number 245/2021 is not maintainable due to its conflict with SARFAESI Act. This petition has originated from   CC43 of 2021

(1) The facts of  CC43 of 2021 are that (I) Subrata Guin and (ii) Sumita Guin (i.e. the borrowers) took a loan of Rs. 2099000/- on 27.11.18 from ICICI Bank (i.e. OP. No. 1 & 3) and purchased Insurance policy from ICICI Prudential. The complainant no. 1 developed carcinoma disease, for which they was entitled to insured benefit from the ICICI Prudential to the extent of Rs. 20,00,000/- but the benefits were given to them for which they could not pay the EMIs

(2) The money lenders sent notice to the borrowers on 07.05.21 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI. This is when the case was filed by the borrowers on 07.09.21. 

(3)  Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard for and against the M.A.  Reference to the i) Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Others on 26.07.2010, ii) Judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Consumer Complaint number 302/2012 on 06.12.2012  and iii) Judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Ajay Rana vs. Virendra Rai on 01.04.2013 has been made by the Ld. Advocate of the Ops in support of her contention that the case is not maintainable. On the other hand the Ld. Advocate of the complainant has made reference to the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Srinivas vs. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. And others reported as 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 147 and also the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case between Canara Bank and United India Insurance Company on 06.02.2020 in support of his submission.

(4) Now question arises whether the complaint case which was filed by the borrowers after receiving notice under section 13(2) of the Act is maintainable or not.

(5)  Insurance policy was issued by Op 2. By sending a letter dated 19.01.2020, the ICICI Prudential gave out that there was no critical illness taken under the policy for which the claim under policy number 28456956 is not applicable.  

(6)  The Ld. Advocate appearing for ICICI Bank has wanted to say that borrower did not have any cause of action against the Bank. The dispute as Bank has not issued the Insurance Policy to him. He may have a dispute as against ICICI  Lombard which had  dis-owned its liability.  But this contention is not so much pertinent now.

(7) The observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.07.2010 in the Judgment passed in the case between United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & Others is as follows:-

“ Section 34 lays down that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. ”

(8) A view taken by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case between Standard Chartered Bank vs. Virendra Rai is that “ No Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter, which a Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.” 

Even the said Judgment contains a direction to the Hon’ble SCDRC and District Commission to file the order passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC without caring whatever their personal views under the SARFAESI Act was given against the borrower in this particular case on 19.01.2020. 

(9)  Regard being had to the above-mentioned proposition of law we hold a view that  the case filed by the borrower after receiving notice under Section 32 under SARFAESI Act is not at all maintainable.

Hence it is ordered that the case be and the same is dismissed as being not maintainable in Law.

The MA being no. 50/2021  and the MA being no. 65/2021 is thus disposed of accordingly.

The injunction petition pending disposal is disposed of accordingly.

Let a plain copy of this judgment to the parties free of cost as per the CPR.

Dictated and corrected by

[HON'BLE MR. Lakshmi Kanta Das]
PRESIDENT