https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465844 A suit for specific performance of a settlement and lease arrangement concerning secured property was held not barred by Section 34 of SARFAESI because the claim was contractual and did not directly challenge measures under Section 13(4). The Court held that civil jurisdiction remained available to adjudicate enforcement of the settlement and the parties' obligations. On the facts, the bank had acted upon the arrangement, and promissory estoppel and the equities of the settlement justified restraint against proceeding with sale of the property. The earlier interim protection was restored and continued pending disposal of the suit. en-us Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Jan 2026 20:43:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465844 A suit for specific performance of a settlement and lease arrangement concerning secured property was held not barred by Section 34 of SARFAESI because the claim was contractual and did not directly challenge measures under Section 13(4). The Court held that civil jurisdiction remained available to adjudicate enforcement of the settlement and the parties' obligations. On the facts, the bank had acted upon the arrangement, and promissory estoppel and the equities of the settlement justified restraint against proceeding with sale of the property. The earlier interim protection was restored and continued pending disposal of the suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465844