Forum selection and debt-recovery bars limit civil court intervention; injunctions restraining special forums are unsustainable.

Contractual forum-selection clauses can exclude other civil fora where parties have agreed to litigate in specified courts, and a special debt-recovery regime further bars civil court intervention in enforcement and recovery matters within the Debts Recovery Tribunal's competence. Injunctions that restrain a party from pursuing proceedings before non-subordinate forums, including the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Company Law Tribunal, offend Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act and are unsustainable. Where a patent jurisdictional error obstructs remedies under special recovery laws, supervisory correction under Article 227 may still be exercised despite the availability of an appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction in view of the contractual jurisdiction clause and the statutory bar under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the injunction orders restraining steps pursuant to the secured creditor's actions were contrary to Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; (iii) Whether supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be exercised despite availability of an appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction in view of the contractual jurisdiction clause and the statutory bar under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: The restructuring documents showed that the parties had agreed to submit disputes to the courts and tribunals at Mumbai and Guwahati. The contractual language reflected an intention to exclude other fora, and the later revocation of restructuring did not dislodge that position because the investment agreement had been taken within the restructuring framework. Independently, the dispute related to enforcement of security interest and recovery steps under the special debt-recovery regime, attracting the bar contained in Section 34, which precludes civil court intervention in matters within the competence of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and also covers actions proposed to be taken under the statute.

Conclusion: The civil court was without jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Issue (ii): Whether the injunction orders restraining steps pursuant to the secured creditor's actions were contrary to Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Analysis: The interim and subsequent injunctions effectively restrained the secured creditor from pursuing proceedings before forums not subordinate to the civil court, including the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Company Law Tribunal. Section 41(b) prohibits injunctions that restrain a person from instituting or prosecuting proceedings in a court not subordinate to the court granting injunction, and that prohibition extends to co-ordinate or superior forums. The restraint therefore went beyond the permissible scope of injunctive relief.

Conclusion: The injunction orders were legally unsustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be exercised despite availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: Although an appeal was available, the case involved a patent jurisdictional error and an order that obstructed recourse under special debt-recovery and insolvency laws. In such circumstances, the availability of another remedy did not bar correction under Article 227, and remitting the matter for a fresh jurisdictional determination would have been unnecessary and futile.

Conclusion: Supervisory interference was justified.

Final Conclusion: The impugned injunction orders were set aside, the revision was allowed, and the proceedings before the trial court were held not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where parties have contractually excluded the jurisdiction of other forums and the dispute falls within the statutory bar governing enforcement actions under a special recovery law, a civil court cannot grant injunctive relief that restrains resort to competent special forums, and the High Court may correct the resulting jurisdictional error in supervisory jurisdiction.

---