https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275799 The High Court affirmed the Civil Court's jurisdiction in a case where the amount sought to be recovered was below Rs. 10.00 lakhs, clarifying that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) lacked jurisdiction due to the threshold amount specified in the DRT Act. The Court emphasized that Section 34 of the Securitisation Act does not bar Civil Courts from entertaining matters falling below the DRT's jurisdictional limit. The judgment highlighted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC and upheld the Civil Judge's decision regarding the Civil Court's jurisdiction under the Securitisation Act. en-us Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:39:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275799 The High Court affirmed the Civil Court's jurisdiction in a case where the amount sought to be recovered was below Rs. 10.00 lakhs, clarifying that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) lacked jurisdiction due to the threshold amount specified in the DRT Act. The Court emphasized that Section 34 of the Securitisation Act does not bar Civil Courts from entertaining matters falling below the DRT's jurisdictional limit. The judgment highlighted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC and upheld the Civil Judge's decision regarding the Civil Court's jurisdiction under the Securitisation Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275799