STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. MUKESH JAIN & ANR.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE BANK OF PATIALA
Mukesh Jain And Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
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 9 th 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
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under:
The appellant is a nationalized bank which had lent
Rs.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 premises bearing
no.C-8/298, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi. As respondent no.1
committed default in re-payment of the said loan, the
appellant initiated proceedings under the provisions of the
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act'). When notice under Section 13(2) of
the Act had been issued and further proceedings were sought
to be initiated by the appellant against respondent no.1, the
said proceedings had been challenged by respondent no.1 by
filing Civil Suit No.4 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi.
(3.) In the said suit, the appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC contending that the Court had
no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of
Section 34 read with Section 13(2) of the Act, which prohibits
a Civil Court from dealing with the matters arising under the
provisions of the Act. After considering the averments made in
the application as well as the reply given by respondent no.1
and upon hearing the concerned counsel, the said application
had been rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 9 th
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.