Civil suit barred under SARFAESI when Section 13(4) measures are challenged and Section 17 remedy is invoked.

Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act bars a civil suit challenging classification of an account as a non-performing asset and measures taken by a secured creditor under Section 13(4) where the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal can determine the same subject matter. The borrower's remedy is the statutory appeal under Section 17, and once that forum is invoked, a parallel civil action on the same measures cannot proceed. On these principles, a suit directly assailing the bank's Section 13(4) steps was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a civil suit challenging classification of an account as non-performing asset and the measures taken by the secured creditor was barred by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 when measures under Section 13(4) had already been taken and an appeal under Section 17 was pending.

Analysis: Section 34 bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, including actions taken or to be taken under the Act. The measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) are within the statutory scheme, and the borrower is provided a remedy by way of appeal under Section 17. The judgment follows the settled position that once the secured creditor has proceeded under Section 13(4), the borrower must pursue the statutory forum and cannot maintain a civil suit on the same subject matter. Since the suit directly challenged measures already taken by the bank, and the plaintiff had already invoked Section 17, the civil action could not proceed.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by law and was liable to be dismissed.

---