Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Jurisdiction of civil court u/s 34 of SARFAESI Act was in question. Suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction was rejected by lower courts under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC. For second appeal u/s 100 CPC, existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non. Section 100 mandates precise statement of substantial question of law and High Court to formulate the same. Entertaining appeal without framing substantial question would be illegal. Substantial question must emerge from sustainable findings of fact and be necessary for just decision. No new point can be raised unless it goes to root of matter. Section 34 bars civil court's jurisdiction over matters within DRT's purview and prohibits injunction against actions under SARFAESI Act. Mere use of word "fraud" without particulars as per Order 6 Rule 4 CPC cannot confer jurisdiction. Lower courts rightly rejected plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. No substantial question of law involved. Appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
