KAILASHI TAR PRIVATE LIMITED vs ASHISH KUMAR SAHA AND OTHERS

A joint supplemental application has been filed appending a schedule intituled as the terms of settlement. Such terms have been arrived at between the

principal parties to the suit and the present proceedings. The supplemental application is affirmed by affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner-

company and individual affidavits of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs in the suit.

The case made out in the plaint relating to Title Suit No.793 of 2015 filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Uluberia is that the

plaintiffs jointly own a parcel of land that had been mortgaged in favour of Indian Overseas Bank for obtaining credit facilities. Indian Overseas Bank

subsequently transferred its rights and obligations pertaining to the credit facilities granted to the plaintiffs in favour of J.M. Financial Asset

Reconstruction Company Limited. The plaintiffs question such transfer in the suit. The grievance in the suit is that men and agents of the petitioner

herein purported to trespass into the plaintiffs’ land and men and agents of the petitioner herein purported to contend that they had purchased the

land from J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002.

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises out of the refusal by the trial court to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was

barred by Section 34 of the said Act of 2002.

During the pendency of the present petition, the principal parties to the suit - the plaintiffs and the petitioner herein - have agreed to resolve their

disputes and by way of the joint application being CAN 2043 of 2018, terms of settlement arrived at by such parties have been reduced to writing. The

terms have been signed by a director of the petitioner herein and both the plaintiffs. The relevant director of the petitioner is present in Court and

produces his Aadhaar card for identification. Let a photocopy of such Aadhaar card be retained with the present papers. The plaintiffs are also

present in person and have also produced their Aadhaar cards. Photocopies of such Aadhaar cards should be retained with the papers.

Though the parties were initially represented by Advocates in this Court, in view of the present ceasework by lawyers, the parties have appeared in

person after obtaining no objection from their respective Advocates. Since the claim in the suit and the disputes therein involve primarily, if not only,

the plaintiffs and the petitioner herein, there does not appear to be any impediment to the terms of settlement being accepted.

A representative of J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, Satyam Saha, Senior Associate, is present in Court and indicates his no-

objection to the consent terms arrived at by the plaintiffs and the petitioner herein. A copy of the board resolution of J.M. Financial Asset

Reconstruction Company Limited passed on October 17, 2013 authorising, inter alia, Satyam Saha, to represent such company in legal proceedings has

been handed over to Court. Let such copy of the board resolution be retained with the papers.

Accordingly, C.O. 4092 of 2016 and CAN 2043 of 2018 and the supplemental application therein filed today incorporating the terms of settlement as a

schedule, stand disposed of. The plaintiffs and the petitioner herein (who is the third defendant in the suit) should immediately approach the trial court

for a consent decree to be passed by the trial court in accordance with the terms of settlement arrived at between such parties.

It is recorded that in accordance with the terms of settlement, a sum of Rs.15 lakh has already been paid by the petitioner herein to the plaintiffs. The

plaintiffs acknowledge receipt thereof in Court. The balance sum of Rs. 10 lakh in terms of settlement will be paid in accordance with such terms.

The petitioner has also agreed to honour the terms to the fullest, including the obligation of the petitioner to make further payments in the event the

land is sold at a price higher than as indicated in the terms of settlement.

There will be no order as to costs.