Civil court jurisdiction under SARFAESI remains barred when a statutory remedy before the Tribunal can address the dispute, even with fraud allegations.

The SARFAESI Act bars civil suits against measures taken under Section 13 where an effective statutory remedy lies under Section 17. A mere allegation of fraud does not lift the Section 34 bar unless the plaint clearly discloses a narrowly exceptional case beyond Tribunal competence, consistent with the limited exception in Mardia Chemicals. Read as a whole, the pleadings here raised a defence that could be examined by the DRT, including the alleged misuse of blank letterheads to transfer funds. The aggrieved parties were required to pursue the statutory remedy before the Tribunal, and the civil action was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit challenging measures taken under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable on the plea that the Bank had acted fraudulently, or whether the plaintiffs were required to pursue the remedy under Section 17 of the Act in view of the bar under Section 34.

Analysis: Section 34 bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, and also prohibits injunctions against action taken or to be taken under the Act. The exception recognised in Mardia Chemicals is narrow and must be strictly construed. A mere allegation of fraud does not by itself confer civil court jurisdiction; the plaint must disclose genuinely complicated or untenable facts showing that the case falls within the limited exception. The pleadings were read as a whole, and the allegation that a letter on blank letterheads was misused to transfer funds was found to be a standard defence capable of being examined in proceedings under Section 17. The plaintiffs, being persons aggrieved by measures under Section 13, had an effective statutory remedy before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable and the plea of fraud did not bring the case within the limited civil court exception.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs were relegated to the statutory remedy under Section 17, and the civil action challenging the SARFAESI measures failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the SARFAESI Act provides a direct remedy under Section 17, civil court jurisdiction remains barred by Section 34 unless the plaint discloses a genuinely limited and clearly pleaded case of fraud or an equally exceptional ground that cannot be examined by the Tribunal.

---