Civil court jurisdiction barred under SARFAESI where disputes over secured assets must be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Section 13(4) measures under the SARFAESI Act attract the exclusive statutory remedy under Section 17, and Section 34 bars civil court jurisdiction where the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to decide the dispute. A claim of tenancy rights over secured property, where the lease was created after the mortgage, does not permit a party to bypass that remedy or obtain an injunction from the civil court. The proper forum to test the asserted right is the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and civil court proceedings and interim restraint orders against SARFAESI action are not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit and grant interim injunction in respect of property proceeded against under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and whether a person claiming tenancy rights over such property had to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The secured creditor had initiated measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the statutory scheme provided a specific remedy under Section 17 to any person aggrieved by those measures. Section 34 expressly barred the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine and also prohibited injunctions against actions taken under the Act. The claimed lease was found to be created after the mortgage and was not accepted as a basis to bypass the statutory remedy. In that situation, the proper forum to establish any asserted right was the Debts Recovery Tribunal, not the civil court. The interim order granted by the trial court therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The civil court lacked jurisdiction, the plaintiff's remedy lay before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the order granting interim injunction was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the impugned interlocutory order was set aside for want of civil court jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where measures are taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, disputes as to the validity of those measures or rights asserted against the secured asset must be pursued before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the civil court is barred from granting injunctions or entertaining the suit.

---