TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a civil suit challenging measures initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was maintainable when the debt claimed was below the threshold in section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ought to have been allowed.
Analysis: Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 creates an express bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts in respect of matters which the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Section 17 of that Act provides the aggrieved borrower a forum before the Tribunal against measures taken under section 13. The limitation in section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 concerns the Tribunal's original jurisdiction for bank debt recovery and cannot be read to extinguish the statutory appellate remedy available under the later Act. The provisions were read harmoniously so that the debtor is not left without a remedy, and the Tribunal's role in such matters was treated as appellate rather than original.
Conclusion: The civil suit was not maintainable, the application under Order VII Rule 11 ought to have been allowed, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 17 even where the amount involved was below ten lakh rupees.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
