TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family properties is barred by section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and whether an injunction can be refused merely because one item is claimed by a secured creditor.
Analysis: The suit was one for partition and allotment of shares in joint family properties, and the plaintiffs were not parties to the debt alleged to have been created in favour of the bank. The bar under section 34 operates only in respect of matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, and it does not extend to disputes about title and shares in properties where the rights of the parties have not yet been adjudicated. Section 35 gives overriding effect to the Act, but that overriding effect does not convert the Act into an absolute bar against every civil suit. The Court also held that the secured creditor could not invoke the Act to proceed against the entire property when the plaintiffs' partition claim remained undecided and the Civil Court alone could determine the respective shares.
Conclusion: The suit was not barred by section 34 of the Act, and the refusal of injunction on that ground was erroneous; the revision petitioners succeeded.
Final Conclusion: Civil court jurisdiction was held to remain available for adjudicating partition rights in the suit properties, and the secured creditor's proposed action could not override that adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: An express bar under the SARFAESI Act does not exclude civil court jurisdiction over a partition dispute unless the matter is one that the statutory tribunal is empowered to determine and the plaintiffs are themselves parties to the secured liability.
TaxTMI 
