LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


Jurisdiction of DRT under the SARFASI Act, 2002:-

The respondents borrowed Rs. 2.95 crores from petitioner bank in lieu of which certain property was mortgaged with the bank. Upon default in repayment of the loan the bank issued notice under section 13(2) of the SARFASI Act, 2002. As the borrowers avoided the notice the bank took possession of the property as contemplated under Section 13(4) of the SARFASI Act, 2002. The respondent filed suit for declaring the notice issued by the bank under section 13(2) of the SARFASI Act, 2002 void, illegal and ultra virus and also for permanent injunction. The bank filed application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reject the plaint on the ground that under section 34 of the SARFASI Act, 2002, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits, which were dismissed by the Trial Court. On revision petitions, the Madras High Court, allowing the petitions, held that bank had issued notice under section 13(2) of the SARFASI Act, 2002 as the respondent had committed default in payment of the loan and resorted to the remedy provided under Section 13(4) of the SARFASI Act, 2002 by taking possession of the secured assets of the borrower, including the right to transfer them by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset. To escape from the action contemplated under Section 13(4) of the SARFASI Act, 2002, the respondent had filed the suit which was not maintainable under Section 34 of the Securitization Act or the SARFASI Act, 2002 because the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The only forum which was entitled to entertain the said suit s under the Securitization Act or the SARFASI Act, 2002 was the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The order passed by the trial court was set aside[1].

Where the bank took action against borrowers under Section 13(4) of the SARFASI Act, 2002, the borrowers did not avail the remedy of filing appeal under Section 17 of the SARFASI Act, 2002. The court fee was not paid by the borrowers. The appeal was held to be not maintainable[2].

By introducing amended provisions of Section 17(1) of the SARFASI Act, 2002 and by prescribing fees in respect of applications to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the Central Government has impliedly specified that the provisions of the DRT Act, 1993 shall also apply to debts less than Rs. 10 lakhs. The borrowers can therefore avail alternative remedy of filing appeal under Section 17 of the SARFASI Act, 2002. Writ petition was not maintainable[3].


 


[1]  Bank of v. Manickam alias sellakumarasamy, (2007) 137 comp. cas. 330 (mad.)

[2] Morion chemicals Ltd. V. UCO Bank Ltd. (2007) 140 Comp. cas. 584 (DRAT-Delhi)

   Bank of Baroda v. Union of India, AIR 2009 Patna 28.

[3] Gauri Shankar Prasad v. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, AIR 2009 Jhar.47 ; Jagdish Chandra joshi v. State   Bank of Patiala, AIR 2008 Uttarakhand 1(DB)


"Loved reading this piece by Manoj kumar sahu?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"






Tags :


Category Corporate Law, Other Articles by - Manoj kumar sahu 



Comments


update