Allahabad High Court
M/S Sanjivini Multi Specialy ... vs Allahabad Bank And 3 Others on 22 November, 2017
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 9
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 519 of 2014
Revisionist :- M/S Sanjivini Multi Specialy Hospital And 2
Others
Opposite Party :- Allahabad Bank And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Kuldeep Saxena,Vijit Saxena
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard Shri Kuldeep Saxena, learned counsel for the
revisionists.
This revision is directed against the order dated
02.08.2014, passed in Civil Suit No.433 of 2010, whereby
issues No.3 and 4 have been decided by the trial Court as
preliminary issues.
Issue no.3 pertained to the jurisdiction of the Court, while
issue no.4 was framed as to whether, the plaint was liable
to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
The instant suit was filed by the revisionist alleging that
the proceedings under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, had wrongly been initiated and
the property auctioned and therefore a declaration was
sought that the auction sale and the sale certificate issued
in pursuance thereof, be declared void.
By the impugned order, the trial Court held that in view of
Section 34 of the Act, 2002, the suit is barred. It therefore,
held that the plant was liable to be rejected and the Civil
Court had no jurisdiction in the matter.
Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that it is for the
Civil court to declare a document void and this is the relief
that was sought by means of the suit. In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Ramalinga Samigal Madam Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu., 1985(4) SCC 10.
In my considered opinion, the case cited has no application
because therein, the provision of the Tamil Nadu Estates
( Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 and the
Tamil Nadu Estates Act 1908 was considered in the context
of Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the
Courts have jurisdiction to try all the suits of a Civil nature,
except suits, cognizable whereof, is either, expressly or
impliedly, barred.
Undisputedly, an auction sale made, invoking the
provisions of the Securitization Act, is sought to be
declared void by means of the suit. The proceedings
whereunder, the auction sale and the consequent sale
certificate have been done in exercise of powers conferred
by Section 13 of the Act.
Against the proceedings undertaken in exercise of powers
conferred by Section 13 Right of an Appeal is provided
under Section 17 of the said Act. Sub-section 1 of this
Section 17, which is relevant and is quoted herein below -
" 1. Any person ( including borrower) aggrieved by any of the
measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the
secured creditor or his authorized officer under this chpater, (may
make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed) to the
Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter................."
Therefore, the contention in the plaint that the proceedings
and the consequent auction sale and issue of sale
certificate were illegal and liable to be declared void is
based on the claim that the procedure prescribed was not
followed and that the Securitisation Act.
In the facts and circumstances could not have been
invoked as it had no application. In my considered opinion,
this argument is definitely upon for, in any case any appeal
that can be filed, under Section 17 of the Securitization
Act.
Additionally, Section 34 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction
of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in
respect of any matter, which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or
the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to
determine. It, therefore, stands establish on record that the
issue i.e. being raised in the suit can be raised by means of
an appeal, under Section 17 of the Act and any such issue
cannot be taken cognizance of the Civil Court in view of
Section 34 of the referred to above.
Under the circumstances, this Court is constraint to hold
that the suit is specifically barred in view of Section 34 of
the Act and for this reason alone, the impugned order
suffers from no jurisdictional error, warranting interference.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision fails and is
dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.11.2017
RKM
