Civil court jurisdiction over securities-related recovery suits survives where the special statute lacks a complete dispute-resolution mechanism.

Civil court jurisdiction over a money recovery suit arising from securities transactions was not excluded by the SEBI Act, 1992 or the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, because those enactments principally provide a regulatory and penal framework and do not create a complete adjudicatory mechanism for such a civil dispute. The Court held that exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not readily inferred and that the saving provision preserves ordinary civil remedies where the special statute does not expressly or by necessary implication bar them. The plaint therefore could not be rejected on the ground of statutory ouster, and the suit was directed to proceed on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil court's jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of dues arising out of securities transactions was barred by the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected on that basis.

Analysis: The objection raised before the trial court was initially framed as one of territorial jurisdiction, but the impugned order proceeded on the footing that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff was an unregistered sub-broker and because the statutory scheme of the securities laws allegedly ousted civil court jurisdiction. The Court examined the bar provisions in the securities legislation and the powers conferred on the Board, the Adjudicating Officer and the Securities Appellate Tribunal. It found that those provisions were directed to regulatory and penal matters and did not empower the statutory authorities to adjudicate a civil dispute for recovery of money between a client and a sub-broker, particularly where both sides were non-members for the purposes of the exchange framework relied upon. The Court also held that exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is not readily inferred, and that the saving provision preserved ordinary civil remedies where the statute did not provide an effective adjudicatory machinery for the dispute.

Conclusion: The civil court's jurisdiction was not barred, and the plaint could not be rejected on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The order rejecting the plaint was unsustainable and was set aside, with the suit directed to proceed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A civil court's jurisdiction is not excluded unless the special statute clearly bars it or provides a complete adjudicatory mechanism for the very dispute in question; a mere regulatory or penal framework does not oust jurisdiction over a pre-existing civil claim for recovery.

---