Territorial jurisdiction for SARFAESI securitisation applications follows RDDB Act principles, not the Code of Civil Procedure.

Territorial jurisdiction for a securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is governed by Section 19(1) of the RDDB Act, because Section 17(7) adopts the RDDB Act procedure to the extent applicable and the proceeding is not a civil suit within Section 16 of the CPC. The jurisdictional rule therefore depends on residence, business, or cause of action, not on the situs of the secured property. The jurisdictional objection was rejected, the impugned orders were set aside, and the securitisation application was restored for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the territorial jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to entertain a securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is governed by the principles in Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or by Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The SARFAESI Act and the RDDB Act operate as complementary enactments aimed at speedy recovery of secured debts and enforcement of security interest. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act enables an aggrieved person to approach the DRT having jurisdiction, while Section 17(7) requires the DRT to dispose of the application, as far as may be, in accordance with the RDDB Act and the Rules. The nature of a proceeding under Section 17 is to challenge measures taken under Section 13(4); it is not a civil suit and does not involve adjudication of the debt in the manner contemplated by the CPC. Section 19(1) of the RDDB Act provides the jurisdictional rule based on residence, business, or cause of action, and that framework is applicable to securitisation applications. Section 16 of the CPC, which is confined to suits concerning subject-matter situate, does not govern such tribunal proceedings.

Conclusion: The DRT's territorial jurisdiction for a securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is to be determined under Section 19(1) of the RDDB Act and not under Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The impugned orders were set aside and the securitisation application was restored for decision on merits.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the jurisdictional objection failed, and the matter was remitted to the DRT to decide the securitisation application on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is governed, as to territorial jurisdiction, by the jurisdictional principles in Section 19(1) of the RDDB Act because Section 17(7) incorporates the RDDB procedure to the extent applicable and the proceeding is not a suit attracting Section 16 of the CPC.

---