Concise Summary of the Court's Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Three matters raising identical facts were heard together. The respondent bank had filed an application under Section 9 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge rejected the appellant's contention that this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 application because of a forum selection clause and further held that under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act, 1993) this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain that application. The bank appealed; service of the notice of appeal was dispensed with. The Court directed filing of a composite paper book and listed the appeal for hearing. The Court addressed an interim protection application, considered competing submissions on the quantum of dues, and dealt with the appointment and replacement of a Receiver. Finally, three General Applications (GA No. 56/2010, GA No. 57/2010 and GA No. 58/2010) were disposed of.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 application in view of the forum selection clause relied on by the appellant.
2. Whether, in light of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993, this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 application.
3. Whether interim protection ought to be granted to the appellant pending the appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent (Bank)

• Through Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, the bank contended that dues as of date amount to Rs. 2.74 crores.
• Mr. Chatterjee (noted earlier as appearing for the sole respondent) represented the respondent at hearing.

Appellants

• Through Mr. Bandhopadhya, Senior Advocate, the appellants disputed the bank's claimed amount but, in the absence of precise instructions, could not state the exact amount they assert is due.
• The appellants stated that Rs. 10 lakhs had been recovered from them in the meantime and offered to pay Rs. 5 lakhs immediately as an interim payment.
• The appellants also contended before the Single Judge that the forum selection clause divested this Court of jurisdiction to hear the Section 9 application.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded on the basis that the three matters involved identical facts and therefore heard them together. It recorded that the learned Single Judge had allowed the bank's Section 9 application and had rejected the appellant's jurisdictional contention arising from the forum selection clause; the Single Judge also considered the RDDBFI Act, 1993 in relation to jurisdiction.

On the interlocutory question of interim protection, the Court evaluated the parties' competing factual claims about the outstanding dues: the bank's assertion of dues of Rs. 2.74 crores versus the appellant's inability to specify their figure, their statement that Rs. 10 lakhs had been recovered, and their offer to pay Rs. 5 lakhs immediately. The Court found the appellants' immediate offer inadequate and therefore declined to grant interim protection. The Court, however, directed that the impugned order would abide the result of the appeal and that any steps taken in the meantime would similarly abide the result.

Regarding the Receiver, the Court accepted Mr. Pratik Dhar's statement of inability to continue (and his return of the remuneration cheque) and relieved him of responsibility. The Court appointed Mr. Prithiviraj Sinha, Advocate, as Receiver with an initial remuneration of Rs. 10,000. The Court directed the respondent bank to pay Rs. 10,000 to Mr. Dhar in recognition of services rendered and requested him to accept that amount.

The Court disposed of GA No. 56/2010, GA No. 57/2010 and GA No. 58/2010 without any order as to costs. It further recorded that since no affidavit was called for, the allegations in the stay application were deemed not admitted. The Court permitted supply of an urgent certified copy of the order subject to formalities.

Holding and Implications

Core Rulings:

• Interim protection denied. The Court refused interim protection to the appellant, finding the appellant's immediate payment offer unacceptable compared to the bank's asserted dues; however, the impugned order and any interim steps were directed to abide the result of the appeal.
• Receiver replaced and remuneration directed. Mr. Pratik Dhar was relieved as Receiver; Mr. Prithiviraj Sinha was appointed Receiver with initial remuneration of Rs. 10,000, and the respondent bank was directed to pay Rs. 10,000 to Mr. Dhar for services rendered.
• General Applications disposed. GA No. 56/2010, GA No. 57/2010 and GA No. 58/2010 were disposed of without any order as to costs.

Implications for the parties:

• The appellant will not receive interim relief and must proceed with the appeal on the record; any actions taken pursuant to the impugned order will be subject to the appellate outcome.
• The bank's claim of dues (as asserted at Rs. 2.74 crores) remains contested on the appeal; the Court did not adjudicate the substantive claim at this stage but declined interim protection to the appellant.
• A new Receiver has been appointed to carry forward the Receiver's functions, and a modest remuneration arrangement for both the outgoing and incoming Receivers was directed.

No broader legal precedent was announced in this opinion; the decision addresses interlocutory and administrative matters specific to these proceedings.