w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Loyal Credit and Investment Ltd., Rep. by Authorised Signatory K.K. Govindamoorthy v/s The EXIM Bank of India, Represented by its Director, Mumbai & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- P V T INVESTMENT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U67120PB1988PLC008068

Company & Directors' Information:- S T INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65993WB1990PTC050032

Company & Directors' Information:- V S EXIM PVT LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U51311UP1997PTC076606

Company & Directors' Information:- D V S EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900DL2004PTC128123

Company & Directors' Information:- M M P EXIM PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28991WB1983PTC095268

Company & Directors' Information:- V R V INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1985PTC039793

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1961PTC025099

Company & Directors' Information:- E T A EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101TN1996PTC034616

Company & Directors' Information:- R B EXIM PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51492WB1995PTC067840

Company & Directors' Information:- Y M EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51102GJ2012PTC072811

Company & Directors' Information:- S P M EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2004PTC129487

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. R. INVESTMENT LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65992UP1988PLC010253

Company & Directors' Information:- B D S EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2011PTC159658

Company & Directors' Information:- N M EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18109DL2009PTC195873

Company & Directors' Information:- U J EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2009PTC192554

Company & Directors' Information:- T M INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1971PTC028172

Company & Directors' Information:- S P A EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC119280

Company & Directors' Information:- P N INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U65910GJ1988PTC010715

Company & Directors' Information:- J M EXIM PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1992PTC055587

Company & Directors' Information:- S P EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909PB1997PTC019506

Company & Directors' Information:- L. B. EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900WB2010PTC152603

Company & Directors' Information:- I J EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00000DL2000PTC108953

Company & Directors' Information:- V G EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101CH1997PTC019811

Company & Directors' Information:- R S EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51396KA2004PTC034559

Company & Directors' Information:- T & L EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45100DL2013PTC260491

Company & Directors' Information:- T & L EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100DL2013PTC260491

Company & Directors' Information:- G K S EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TN2005PTC057833

Company & Directors' Information:- U V EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51220PB2003PTC026463

Company & Directors' Information:- K D N EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909RJ2012PTC038242

Company & Directors' Information:- B C K H INVESTMENT CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120MH1982PTC026819

Company & Directors' Information:- Y S P EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74992RJ2004PTC019058

Company & Directors' Information:- G. N. S. EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2011PTC140730

Company & Directors' Information:- D S EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2003PTC120239

Company & Directors' Information:- S B A EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC135649

Company & Directors' Information:- V M S EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2005PTC135687

Company & Directors' Information:- C & C EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2012PTC234606

Company & Directors' Information:- K D P EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2011PTC226764

Company & Directors' Information:- M L EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2008PTC176344

Company & Directors' Information:- S R H EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL2004PTC127188

Company & Directors' Information:- M T D EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC144165

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INDIA EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51300KL2013PTC033154

Company & Directors' Information:- D J S EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52190GJ2010PTC061888

Company & Directors' Information:- M G A INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1980PTC022406

Company & Directors' Information:- C J P INVESTMENT PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999GJ1981PTC004662

    O.A. No. 442 of 2020 in C.S. No. 242 of 2020

    Decided On, 29 January 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

    For the Applicant: E. Om Prakash, Senior Counsel for M/s. Ramalingam & Associates, Advocates. For the Defendants: D1 & D2, Vijay Narayan, Advocate General, T. Ravichandran, D3, CSK. Sathish, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S Rules read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents/defendants, their men, agent, servants, assigns, administrators, successors in interest and every persons claiming under them from enforcing the Corporate Guarantee dated 25.03.2013 invoked by it on 08.05.2019 and sale of 40 lakh shares of the third respondent pledged by the applicant under the deed of pledge dated 25.03.2013.)

1. Application filed by the Plaintiff seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from enforcing the corporate guarantee dated 25.3.2013, as invoked on 8.5.2019, and the sale of 40 lakh shares of the 3rd Defendant pledged by the Plaintiff under Deed of Pledge dated 25.3.2013.

2. C.S.No. 242 of 2020 had been filed by the Plaintiff, Loyal Credit and Investment Limited, against Exim Bank of India with addresses at Mumbai and Chennai as the 1st and 2nd Defendants, and against one of its own group companies – Indo Wind Energy Limited, as the 3rd Defendant. Plaintiff seeks a judgment and decree against the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration that:

a) the Deed of Corporate Guarantee dated 25.3.2013 and the Deed of Pledge dated 25.3.2013, executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the 1st and 2nd Defendants stood terminated and

b) consequent invocation of Deed of Corporate Guarantee and enforcement of Deed of pledge is void and not binding on the Plaintiff and

c) for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from enforcing the corporate guarantee and the Deed of Pledge and

d) for a mandatory injunction directing the 1st and 2nd defendants to hand the original Deed of Corporate Guarantee and Deed Pledge executed by the Plaintiff over and

e) for costs of the suit.

3. The Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant are group companies. The 1st and 2nd Defendants are Government of India entities and specialized financial institution facilitating and promoting foreign trade and financing Indian companies.

4. The 3rd Defendant had availed a term loan of 180,00,000 euros equivalent to 250,00,000 US Dollars from the 1st Defendant on 17.6.2010 for the setting up of a 25 Mega Watts wind mill power generation project in the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The 1st Defendant sanctioned the loan, which was also for the purpose of importing equipment and allied services. A loan agreement dated 18.1 2011, was executed by the 3rd Defendant in favor of the 1stDefendant.

5. In the plaint, it had been stated that, till 31.5.2011 , the 1st Defendant had disbursed only 100,00,000 USD to the 3rd Defendant. The balance had been agreed to be released on the furnishing of a corporate guarantee by the Plaintiff and the pledging of 40 lakh shares held by the Plaintiff in the 3rd defendant company. The Board of Directors of the Plaintiff passed a resolution authorizing the execution of a corporate guarantee and the pledge of the shares. It has been further stated in the plaint that the liability of the plaintiff was restricted to the value of the shares pledged. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the Deed of Corporate Guarantee and the Deed of Pledge were only stop-gap arrangements, till the 3rd Defendant completes mortgage formalities in favor of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. It the further contention of the Plaintiff that, once a mortgage had been created by the 3rd Defendant by deposit of original title deeds of its immovable properties, the Deed of Corporate Guarantee and the Deed of Pledge would stand terminated.

6. It is claimed by the Plaintiff that the 3rd Defendant had deposited the title deeds of its immovable properties with the 1st Defendant on 10.2.2012. However, as there were disputes between the 3rd Defendant and the 1st/2nd Defendants, the 3rd Defendant had filed a Commercial Suit in COMS/647/2019 before the Bombay High Court. It has been further stated in the plaint that the 1stDefendant recalled the loan sanctioned to the 3rd Defendant, and by a letter dated 8.5.2019, sought to invoke the guarantee offered by the Plaintiff in its capacity as a corporate guarantor, and called upon the Plaintiff to make a payment of Rs. 86,33,62,540.25 towards the dues along with interest and damages.

7. The Plaintiff addressed a letter, dated 10.5.2019, to the 3rd Defendant expressing surprise at the letter issued by the 1st Defendant. The 3rd Defendant, by letter dated 28.6.2019,requested the Plaintiff to approach the 1st and 2nd Defendants for release of Rs. 40 lakh shares pledged. The Plaintiff then, by letter dated 4.8.2020, brought these facts to the notice of the 2nd Defendant. However the 1st and 2nd Defendants by letter dated 7.9.2020, informed the Plaintiff of their intention to sell the 40 lakh shares of the 3rd Defendant. They also called upon the Plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 102,50,80,293.40.

8. In response, the Plaintiff claimed to be the rightful owner of the shares which stand was denied by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. It is under these circumstances, to protect its rights, the suit been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

9. Along with the suit, the Plaintiff filed the Application now under consideration, seeking interim injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from enforcing the Corporate Guarantee and from selling the 40 lakh shares of the 3rd Defendant that had been pledged by the Plaintiff. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the authorised signatory of the Plaintiff reiterated the same facts as stated in the plaint, and claimed that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience stood entirely in favour of the plaintiff. It had also been stated that the 1st and 2nd Defendants would not be prejudiced in any manner if the relief was granted.

10. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the 1st and 2ndDefendant. After setting out details regarding the loans advanced to the 3rd Defendant, it had also been stated, that in partial compliance of the terms of the sanctioned letter dated 17.6.2010, the 3rd Defendant deposited the lease deed of a property situated in Chitradurga in Karnataka and the title deeds of a property Kayathar in Tamil Nadu.

11. On scrutiny of the documents, it was found that the lease deed with the respect to the property in Karnataka had not been registered, and that consequently, a mortgage could not be created or registered in favour of the 1stDefendant. With respect to the property at Tamil Nadu, the 1stDefendant was informed that the Madras High Court, by an order dated 23.11.2011, in a winding up petition against the 3rd Defendant had restrained the 3rd Defendant from creating any encumbrances with respect to its properties. It has been very specifically stated that these facts were not brought to the knowledge of the 1st Defendant by the officials of the 3rd Defendant.

12. It had been also stated that the plaintiff had guaranteed the loan sanctioned to the 3rd Defendant by executing a Deed of Corporate Guarantee and a Deed of Pledge, pledging 40 lakh shares of the 3rd Defendant. It had been stated that the 1stDefendant was also prepared to sanction the undisbursed loan amount but the proposals received by the 3rd Defendant with respect to such disbursement were for the acquisition of domestic windmill equipments and this was beyond of the scope of the loan.

13. It had bee stated that it was for this reason, and the further reason that the 3rd Defendant had not offered as security properties to the satisfaction of the 1st and 2nd Defendants that the further disbursement of the loan was rejected by the 1st Defendant. The 3rd Defendant also failed to meet the repayment schedule, even with respect to the principle amount. The 1st Defendant, by letter dated 19.11.2018, called upon the 3rd Defendant to clear the outstanding dues. Thereafter, by letter dated 23.1.2019, the 1st Defendant recalled the loan, and also invoked the Corporate Guarantee by another letter dated 8.5.2019. It had been stated that the liability of the plaintiff is accordingly, continuing, as the 3rd Defendant did not create the mortgages. All the other averments were also denied in counter affidavit.

14. The 3rd Defendant also a filed a counter affidavit in which, again, the details of the loan had been stated and it had been additionally stated that the 3rd Defendant had created a valid mortgage over its free hold lands in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka by deposit of title deeds. It had also been stated that the 3rd Defendant had filed an application seeking permission to create a charge over the lands. The 3rd Defendant also affirmed the execution of the Corporate Guarantee and the Deed of Pledge by the Plaintiff. It had been stated that however, owing to the partial sanction of the loan amount, only 8 MW Wind Power Project could be developed as against the proposed 25 MW Project. The allegation that there had been a default in the repayment of the loan was denied. The 3rd Defendant also disclaimed all knowledge of the correspondences between the Plaintiff and the 1st/2nd Defendants.

15. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. E. Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the plaintiff and Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and Mr. CSK Sathish, learned counsel for the 3rd Defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as Plaintiff and Defendants. It is to be noted that the Plaintiff had filed the application now under consideration.

16. The following facts are not dispute :

1. The 3rdDefendant had availed a term loan of 180,00,000 euros equivalent to 250,00,000 USD from the 1st defendant for the purpose of setting up 25 MW wind mill power generation factory in the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

2. The 1st Defendant had disbursed 100,00,000 USD to the 3rd Defendant.

3. As a stipulation for releasing the balance 150,00,000 USD , the 1st Defendant had called upon the plaintiff to furnish a Corporate Guarantee and pledge 40 lakh shares of the 3rd Defendant held by the Plaintiff.

17. This stipulation to furnish a corporate guarantee and to pledge 40 lakhs share of the 3rd Defendant was insisted upon by the 1st/2nd Defendants because the 3rdDefendant had not satisfied their commitment to create a mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the properties which they had offered in Chitradurga, Karnataka and Kayathar in Tamil Nadu. The title deeds of the said properties had been forwarded to the 1st/2nd Defendants. A scrutiny of the documents revealed that a mortgage could not be executed or registered with respect to the properties at Karnataka since the original lease in favour of the 3rdDefendant itself had not been registered. A mortgage could not be executed with respect to the properties in Tamil Nadu owing to an order of injunction by the Madras High Court in CP No. 172/2011, which restrained the 3rd defendant from encumbering any of its properties.

18. In view of these facts, left with no security for the amounts already advanced and for the amount demanded to be advanced, the 1st/2ndDefendants had called upon the Plaintiff, a group company of the 3rd Defendant, to execute a Deed of Corporate Guarantee and a Deed of Pledge. These deeds were executed on 25.3.2013 and thereby, quiet apart from, offering corporate guarantee for satisfying the loan disbursed, the Plaintiff also pledged 40 lakh shares of the 3rdDefendant with the 1stDefendant.

19. Disputes with respect to claim of non repayment of the loan disbursed and non disbursement of the remainder of the sanctioned loan, between the 1st and 3rd Defendants arose and this led to the 3rdDefendant instituting a suit in COMS/647/2019 before the Bombay High Court against the 1st Defendant seeking, among other reliefs, the following relief, also as relief “g(i)” :

“(g) that in the event of this Honourable Court not ordering and directing the defendant to release undisbursed loan amount of USD 12.3 million be ordered and directed to return/ release the following excess securities lying with the defendant.

(i) Forty lacs shares of the plaintiff company held by Loyal Credit and Investment Ltd…”.

20. This relief sought in the suit at the High Court of Bombay has been pointed out by the learned Advocate General who was very vehement in his submission, that the present suit instituted by the Plaintiff for the very same relief directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants not to sell very same 40 lakh shares is a case of relitigation or reagitation of the same issue in two different forums. Learned Advocate General pointed out that the Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant are group companies with the directors being common and insisted that the Plaintiff therefore cannot disclaim knowledge of the institution of the suit at the High Court of Bombay by the 3rdDefendant or the reliefs sought therein.

21. This submission has been disputed by Mr. E. Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff who pointed out, that the suit in the High Court of Bombay was filed in January 2019 and, much later, by a letter dated 8.5.2019, the 1stDefendant had sought to invoke the guarantee offered by the Plaintiff in its capacity as a corporate guarantor and had called upon the Plaintiff to make a payment of Rs. 86,33,62,540.25 towards the dues as on 7.5.2019 along with interest and damages. Learned Senior Counsel also stated that the immediate cause of action was a letter dated 7.9.2020 by the 2nd Defendant wherein they had stated that they would enforce the pledge pursuant to the enforcement of the corporate guarantee. Learned Senior Counsel therefore states that the cause of action for the present suit arose subsequent to the institution of the suit in Bombay and stated that consequently this suit cannot be termed as relitigation. Learned Senior Counsel also stated that the 3rd Defendant had deposited the title deeds on 10.02.2012 as required and had therefore satisfied the conditions laid down by the 1st Defendant.

22. This statement has been disputed by the Learned Advocate General who pointed out the clauses in the Deed of Guarantee which provided that the guarantor shall be released of its obligation only on completion of the mortgage formalities. It was specifically pointed out by the learned Advocate General that the mortgage of the properties offered by the 3rd defendant could not be completed owing to the fact that the lease deed with respect to the Karnataka properties in favour of the 3rddefendant had not been registered and there was a restraint order of the Madras High Court injuncting the 3rd Defendant from creating encumbrances over the properties in Tamil Nadu.

23. The one fact that troubles me is whether the letters issued by the 1st Defendant, subsequent to the institution of the suit at Bombay by the 3rd Defendant could give a cause to the Plaintiff to institute a fresh suit or whether that letters could have been produced by the 3rd defendant before the Bombay High Court to insist the necessity to grant interim protection on the same lines as is now sought by the Plaintiff before this Court. I hold that the third defendant should have taken issue over the letter since the letter dated 8.5.2019, though addressed to the Plaintiff herein was also marked to the 3rd Defendant as a recipient.

24. Moreover, the Plaintiff has cited as causes of action, a letter dated 4.8.2020 addressed by it to the 2ndDefendant and a letter dated 7.9.2020 addressed by the 2nd Defendant to it. A perusal of the two letters also reveal that copies were marked to the 3rdDefendant. It is thus evident that the Plaintiff has had privity of all transactions correspondences between the 1st/2ndDefendants and the 3rdDefendant and similarly the 3rdDefendant had privity of all transactions/correspondences betwen the plaintiff with the 1st/2ndDefendants. The execution of the Deed of Corporate Guarantee and the Deed of Pledge were solely to ensure disbursement of the unpaid sanctioned loan by the 1st/2ndDefendants to the 3rd defendant. I hold that an irresistible conclusion has to be drawn that the Plaintiff and the 3rd defendant acted in coordination to secure the loan but that there was no such coordination extended by either of them to repay the loan or to satisfy the conditions of the loan.

25. I further hold that the plaintiff also cannot disclaim knowledge of the suit instituted at Bombay. The 3rd Defendant had sought a relief , albeit an alterative relief, still a relief, calling upon that Court to exercise its judicial mind and examine whether the 40 lakhs shares pledged by the plaintiff herein can be released by the 1st/2nd Defendants herein. The reliefs sought in present suit are also the same. Smart drafting would not make it any different or add a different hue to it. The relief sought is to discharge the pledge of 40 lakhs shares. The present suit is more akin to a conjurer’s trick who says ‘I have it up my sleeve’ as very evidently, the 3rd defendant, who after obtaining no relief in the Bombay High Court , has come searching to this court, masquerading in the guise of the plaintiff and seeking the very same relief as against the same Defendant. The third defendant has tried another trick up its sleeve. This is just not done. It cannot be permitted. It has to be prevented. It is prohibited.

26. In the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 2421 1 (T.Arivanandam Vs. T.V.Satyapal), the father had contested the eviction proceedings, lost it, appealed against it, lost again, moved a revision, suffered rejection of the revision petition and after that, his son re-litigated by filing a suit seeking that the eviction order has been obtained by fraud and collusion. In the said decision, the Honourable Supreme Court had stated as follows:-

“2. Here is an audacious application by a determined engineer of fake litigations asking for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court on an interlocutory application for injunction. The sharp practice or legal legerdemain of the petitioner, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, stultifies the court process and makes a decree with judicial seals brutum fulmen. The long arm of the law must throttle such litigative caricatures if the confidence and credibility of the community in the judicature is to survive. ..”

27. In 1998-3-SCC-573 (K.K.Modi Vs. K.N.Modi), the Honourable Supreme Court had stated as follows:-

“44. One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of the court is re litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The re agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of the court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of the court's discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding.” 28. The same dictum and preposition of law had been reiterated with much advantage by this court in 2005 4 LW 206 (The Member Concern Department of Post, Government of India, Ministry of Communication Vs. Annapoorni and others), which is a case where the property of the respondents in the civil revision petition had been acquired by the Postal Department for construction of a Post Office and a Postal Department Administration Block. Numerous litigations were filed by the wife and the family members of the land owner entwining the Postal Department in a number of litigations, which had been filed with the purpose of insisting reconveyance of land or getting more rent or to just keep the litigation alive. In such circumstances also, this court affirmed that relitigation at various forums with respect to the same subject matter would amount to abuse of process of court and law. 29. It is clear that the present suit is a relitigation, reagitaing the same issue already filed in the High Court of Bombay by the 3rd Defendant. The plaintiff cannot claim innocence and ignorance of the said suit filed by the 3rd defendant and seek indulgence of this Court. This had to viewed in the background of the undisputed fact that the Plaintiff and 3rd Defendant are group companies with their managements overlapping and naturally interests also overlapping. On this one ground alone, quiet apart from the fact that, so long as the mortgages have not been properly executed by the 3rd Defendant, which alone can determine the Deed of Corporate Guarantee and the Deed of Pledge, which contingency had not yet arisen, the relief sought by the Plaintiff will have to be necessarily negatived by this court and is accordingly, negated. 30. The application is dismissed with costs. 31. In so far as costs are concerned, the 1st/2nd Defendants can take that issue up, at the time of disposal of the suit and in accordance with Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
O R