2022 (6) TMI 1511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....addition, a permanent injunction is sought against co-sharers and secured creditor/defendant no.5 from creating third-party interest in the subject matter of the suit. In the said suit, the appellant applied a temporary injunction restraining co-sharers and the secured creditor from creating third-party interest either by themselves or acting on their behalf in relation to the subject matter of the suit. b) The secured creditor/defendant no.5 contested the said suit and application by filing its written statement and say. Defendant no.5, by way of said reply, pointed out that the suit against defendant no.5 is barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The secured creditor had invoked the provisions of the SARFAESI Act by issuing action under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act against which the defendant no.1/original borrower approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal but could not get favourable relief. It is also stated that the borrower approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.433 of 2022 but could not get favourable relief. It is therefore stated that no relief of injunction can be granted against the secured creditor by this Court. c) After hearing both sides rejected....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sal of the impugned judgment, in my opinion, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the application for a temporary injunction restraining the secured creditor from proceeding with the measures provided under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of Section 34 of the said Act. The Apex Court, in the case of SBI Vs. M/s. Allwyn Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Ors 2018(8) SCC 120 in paragraph 8 observed as under: "8. After having considered the rival submissions of the parities, we have no hesitation in acceding to the argument urged on behalf of the Bank that the mandate of Section 13 and, in particular, Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the 2002 Act"), clearly bars filing of a civil suit. For, no civil court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a DRT or DRAT is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction can be granted by any Court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act." ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has got a statutory right of appeal to the DRT under Section 17. The opening portion of Section 34 clearly states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding "in respect of any matter" which a DRT or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Securitisation Act to determine. The expression 'in respect of any matter' referred to in Section 34 would take in the "measures" provided under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act. Consequently if any aggrieved person has got any grievance against any "measures" taken by the borrower under sub-section (4) of Section 13, the remedy open to him is to approach the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal and not the civil court. Civil Court in such circumstances has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of those matters which fall under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act because those matters fell within the jurisdiction of the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal. Further, Section 35 says, the Securitisation Act overrides other laws, if they are inconsistent with the provisions of that Act, which takes in Section 9 CPC as well. 25. We are of the vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r realising the secured assets. Any person aggrieved by any of the "measures" referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 has got a statutory right of appeal to the DRT under Section 17. The opening portion of Section 34 clearly states that no civil court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding "in respect of any matter" which a DRT or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Securitisation Act to determine. The expression "in respect of any matter" referred to in Section 34 would take in the "measures" provided under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act. Consequently, if any aggrieved person has got any grievance against any "measures" taken by the borrower under sub-section (4) of Section 13, the remedy open to him is to approach the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal and not the civil court. The civil court in such circumstances has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of those matters which fall under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Securitisation Act because those matters fell within the jurisdiction of the DRT and the Appellate Tribunal. Further, Section 35 says, the Securitisation Act overrides ....