https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336165 Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 bars civil court jurisdiction over matters the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal can determine, while section 17 provides the borrower a statutory remedy against measures taken under section 13. The debt-limit in section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 concerns the Tribunal's original debt-recovery jurisdiction and does not curtail the later Act's appellate remedy. Read harmoniously, the borrower is not left remediless, and the Tribunal's role in such disputes is appellate rather than original. A civil suit challenging SARFAESI measures is therefore not maintainable. en-us Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336165 Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 bars civil court jurisdiction over matters the Debts Recovery Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal can determine, while section 17 provides the borrower a statutory remedy against measures taken under section 13. The debt-limit in section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 concerns the Tribunal's original debt-recovery jurisdiction and does not curtail the later Act's appellate remedy. Read harmoniously, the borrower is not left remediless, and the Tribunal's role in such disputes is appellate rather than original. A civil suit challenging SARFAESI measures is therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336165