Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a suit for partition asserting civil rights in 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 rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was justified.
Analysis: Section 34 bars civil court adjudication only in respect of matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. A partition suit based on asserted ancestral or co-ownership rights involves determination of civil rights that remain within the competence of the civil court. Even where a secured creditor seeks enforcement of security interest under section 13 of the Act, the civil court is not ousted from deciding whether the properties are joint family properties and whether the plaintiff has a partitionable interest in them. The plaints could not therefore be rejected merely on the footing that the bank had initiated recovery action under the Act.
Conclusion: The bar under section 34 did not apply to the partition claims, and the rejection of the plaints under Order 7 Rule 11(d) was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act does not oust civil court jurisdiction over a bona fide partition suit seeking adjudication of civil rights in joint family or co-owned property, because such claims are not matters exclusively determinable by the recovery fora under the Act.