9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the challenge to an order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit. The applicants, defendant Nos. 1 and 2, contended that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction due to the provisions of sections 32 and 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. They argued that the Civil Court cannot entertain matters within the purview of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as per the Act. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that as members of a joint family, they have civil rights that can only be adjudicated by a Civil Court. They contended that the right of a co-parcener falls under the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and not the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The respondents emphasized that the term "any person" in the Act should be interpreted broadly to include co-parceners and members of a joint family. The judge disagreed with the respondents' submissions and cited the wide interpretation of the term "any person" under section 17 of the Act. Referring to the Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India case, the judge acknowledged that the examples provided by the Supreme Court are not exhaustive. However, upon examining the pleadings, it was found that there was a partition between the respondents, leading to the property acquired post-partition being self-acquired and not joint family property. Consequently, the judge ruled that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter, and only the Debts Recovery Tribunal had the authority to adjudicate. In the final order, the Civil Revision Application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the suit was dismissed. The judgment clarified that the respondents were free to present their arguments before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, emphasizing that the Tribunal should not be swayed by the observations made in the present judgment.
|
