https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458388 Where the plaint averments themselves showed that the dispute concerned measures taken in relation to a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 because the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal were to determine the matter. The plaint disclosed that the statutory remedy under Section 17 was available, so the court could examine only the plaint pleadings and need not consider factual defences. On that basis, rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC was justified and the suit was not maintainable before the civil court. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2024 12:34:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458388 Where the plaint averments themselves showed that the dispute concerned measures taken in relation to a secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 because the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal were to determine the matter. The plaint disclosed that the statutory remedy under Section 17 was available, so the court could examine only the plaint pleadings and need not consider factual defences. On that basis, rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC was justified and the suit was not maintainable before the civil court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458388