9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Order VII Rule 11 are set aside. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2016 - ANIL R. DAVE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. B.K. Satija,Adv. JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 8th April, 2005 delivered in Civil Revision Petition No.242 of 2004 by the High Court of Delhi, this appeal has been filed by the appellant, whose application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had been rejected by the trial Court and being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 9th February, 2004, the aforestated Civil Revision Petition was filed before the High Court, but the said Civil Revision Petition was also rejected by the impugned order and therefore, this appeal has been filed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under: The appellant is a nationalized bank which had lent ₹ 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh) to respondent no.1 by way of a term loan on certain conditions and so as to secure the said debt, respondent no.1 debtor had mortgaged his immovable property forming part of premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated circumstances, the trial Court was of the view that as the DRT Act had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order passed under the provisions of the Act, a civil suit was maintainable and therefore, the application made under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC had been rejected by the trial Court. The High Court confirmed the said view of the trial Court. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, challenging the validity of the impugned judgment, submitted that the view expressed by the High Court confirming rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 is not correct because the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings under the Act as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Act. Section 34 of the Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court from dealing with any matter which arises under the Act. 8. The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court as well as the High Court were not correct while coming to the conclusion that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order passed under the Act in pursuance of the provisions of Section 1(4) of the DRT Act. 9. He also submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993). Section 1(4) of the DRT Act reads as under: 1. Short title, extent, commencement and application. - (1) .. (2) .. (3) .. (4) The provisions of this Act shall not apply where the amount of debt due to any bank or financial institution or to a consortium of banks or financial institutions is less than ten lakh rupees or such other amount, being not less than one lakh rupees, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify. 15. Upon perusal of Section 34 of the Act, it is very clear that no Civil Court is having jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debt Recovery Tribunal or the appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure is to limit the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal. If any claim is to be made before the Tribunal, the amount must be more than ₹ 10 lakh and if the amount is less than ₹ 10 lakh, the creditor bank will have to file a suit in a Civil Court. So, one can safely interpret the provisions of Section 1(4) of the DRT Act to the effect that it deals with original jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the provisions of the DRT Act. 22. In the instant case, we are concerned with the challenge to the proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act. There is a specific provision in the Act to the effect that the proceedings initiated under the Act cannot be challenged before a Civil Court because the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any matter arising under the Act and in that event, the concerned debtor has to approach the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. 23. Thus, the Tribunal would be exercising its appellate jurisdiction when the action initiated under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act is challenged before the Tribunal. There is a difference between the Tribunal s original jurisdiction under the provisions of the DRT Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
