Supreme Court Affirms DRT's Exclusive Jurisdiction in Mortgage Dispute, Overturns High Court Ruling for Fresh Review.

The SC set aside the HC's judgment in Writ Petition No.7480 of 2014, which had allowed the petitioners to seek adjudication of their rights in a mortgaged flat through a competent forum. The SC upheld the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, emphasizing its exclusivity in such matters. The SC found the HC's direction for the bank to deposit money unjustified and restored the writ petition to the HC for a fresh decision, urging prompt resolution.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Validity of judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No.7480 of 2014.
2. Examination of the plea regarding the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13th March, 2011.
3. Dispute over the right, title, and interest in a flat mortgaged to the bank.
4. Jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the High Court in deciding matters related to secured assets.
5. Challenge to the High Court's decision by the Bank.
6. Possession of the subject flat by one party and the claim of entitlement.
7. Interpretation of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
8. Direction to deposit a sum of money by the Bank and its validity.
9. Restoration of the writ petition to the High Court for further proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The judgment under appeal challenged the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No.7480 of 2014, which disposed of the petition without setting aside the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The High Court granted liberty to the writ petitioners to approach a competent forum for adjudication of their rights in a flat mortgaged to the bank.

2. The issue revolved around the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13th March, 2011, relied upon by the writ petitioners to establish their claim over the flat. The Debts Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal found that the document was created after the mortgage and did not confer any right in favor of the writ petitioners. The tribunals upheld the bank's equitable mortgage on the flat due to the lack of evidence from the writ petitioners.

3. The High Court noted the disputed facts regarding the right, title, and interest in the flat and allowed the writ petitioners to contest the matter before a proper forum. The court granted a period for approaching the forum and directed the bank to deposit a sum of money, which was later found to be an uncalled-for direction.

4. The Supreme Court emphasized the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the limitations on civil courts in matters related to secured assets under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The Court found the High Court's approach fallacious and set aside the judgment, reiterating the exclusivity of the DRT in deciding such matters.

5. The Bank's challenge to the High Court's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, which directed the restoration of the writ petition to the High Court for a fresh decision based on merits and in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the case.

---