Statutory attachment under the Special Courts Act bars DRT execution over property, leaving disposal to the Special Court alone.

Property attached by operation of the Special Courts Act remains under the Special Court's control, even though the Debt Recovery Tribunal retains jurisdiction to adjudicate and recover the bank's debt claim under the Debt Recovery Act. The Tribunal cannot execute a recovery certificate against such attached property, nor can it grant directions affecting its sale or disposal; those matters lie exclusively before the Special Court. A prayer for declaration of charge over the attached properties was also not maintainable because no charge had been created in favour of the bank and the assets were already under statutory attachment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal could grant reliefs relating to the attached property of a notified person and execute the recovery certificate against such property under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. (ii) Whether a declaration of charge over the notified person's attached properties was maintainable before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Issue (i): Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal could grant reliefs relating to the attached property of a notified person and execute the recovery certificate against such property under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: On notification under section 3(3) of the Special Courts Act, the property of the notified person stands attached by operation of law, and under sections 3(4), 3(5) and 9A the Special Court is empowered to deal with such attached property as a civil court would. The Debt Recovery Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal for adjudication and recovery of bank claims under sections 17, 18, 25 and 34, but that jurisdiction operates in a different field. The two enactments were held capable of harmonious construction: the Tribunal may determine the bank's claim, but sale or execution against attached property of a notified person requires recourse to the Special Court, which alone can regulate disposal of that property.

Conclusion: The Debt Recovery Tribunal had no jurisdiction to execute the certificate against the attached properties of the notified person; the Special Court alone had to be approached for directions concerning such property.

Issue (ii): Whether a declaration of charge over the notified person's attached properties was maintainable before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The bank sought a declaration that the amounts claimed were secured by charge over the properties, but it was undisputed that no charge had been created in favour of the bank. Since the properties already stood attached under the Special Courts Act, the Tribunal could not declare or create a charge in respect of them, and any claim affecting those assets had to be pursued before the Special Court.

Conclusion: The prayer for declaration of charge over the attached properties was not maintainable before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was excluded in relation to the notified person's attached properties, while the bank's general recovery claim under the Debt Recovery Act remained within the Tribunal's competence. The rule was made partly absolute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property stands attached by operation of the Special Courts Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal may adjudicate the bank's debt claim, but execution, sale, or any direction affecting that attached property lies within the exclusive control of the Special Court.

---