Civil court injunction barred under SARFAESI Act; borrower must use the Debt Recovery Tribunal remedy.

A civil court cannot grant a temporary injunction restraining a secured creditor from proceeding under the SARFAESI Act where the dispute concerns measures taken under Sections 13 and 14. Section 34 bars civil court jurisdiction in matters the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, and Section 35 gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent civil remedies. Measures under Section 13(4) fall within this statutory bar, so an aggrieved party must pursue the remedy under Section 17 before the DRT. The civil suit was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a civil court can grant a temporary injunction restraining a secured creditor from proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and whether the aggrieved party must pursue the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Analysis: The dispute concerned an injunction sought against a secured creditor from taking measures under Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The statutory scheme was applied as interpreted by the Supreme Court, under which Section 34 bars civil court jurisdiction in respect of matters that the Debt Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. The measures taken under Section 13(4) fall within that bar, and an aggrieved person must avail the remedy under Section 17. The Act also operates with overriding effect under Section 35, making inconsistent civil remedies unavailable.

Conclusion: The civil court could not grant the injunction, and the proper remedy lay before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The challenge to the secured creditor's action was therefore not maintainable in civil court.

---