Civil court jurisdiction is barred against SARFAESI enforcement measures when the Act provides a special appellate remedy.

Civil suits challenging measures taken under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act are barred where the statute provides a direct remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and excludes civil court jurisdiction through Sections 34 and 35. The special appellate mechanism under Section 17 is independent of the debt threshold in Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so that threshold does not restore civil court jurisdiction or limit the statutory remedy. The plaint was therefore held not maintainable and rejected for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a civil suit challenging measures initiated under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is barred by Sections 17, 34 and 35 of that Act. (ii) Whether the debt threshold under Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 affects the remedy under Section 17 of the 2002 Act and the civil court's jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether a civil suit challenging measures initiated under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is barred by Sections 17, 34 and 35 of that Act.

Analysis: The plaint itself showed that the suit was directed against notices issued under Section 13(2) and the measures contemplated by Section 13(4). The statutory scheme confers an appeal to any person aggrieved by measures taken under Section 13(4) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The bar in Section 34 extends to matters which the Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, and Section 35 gives overriding effect to the special Act. The civil court therefore cannot entertain a suit seeking declarations and injunctions against such measures.

Conclusion: The civil suit was barred and not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the debt threshold under Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 affects the remedy under Section 17 of the 2002 Act and the civil court's jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 1(4) of the 1993 Act concerns the original jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in bank recovery proceedings and does not control the appellate jurisdiction created later by Section 17 of the 2002 Act. The right of appeal under the 2002 Act is independent of the amount involved, and the threshold under the 1993 Act cannot revive civil court jurisdiction where the special statute bars it.

Conclusion: The debt threshold under the 1993 Act did not confer civil court jurisdiction or exclude the statutory remedy under the 2002 Act.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge succeeded, the order refusing rejection of the plaint was set aside, and the plaint was rejected for want of maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides a complete appellate mechanism against enforcement measures and expressly bars civil court jurisdiction, a suit challenging those measures is not maintainable, and a separate jurisdictional threshold under another statute cannot override that bar.

---