Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ongole vs Chinigepalli Lathangi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2005 Supreme(AP) 1075

D.S.R.VERMA, G.ROHINI
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ongole – Appellant
Versus
Chinigepalli Lathangi – Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters covered by the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), and cannot grant injunctions against secured creditors exercising powers under this Act. (!) [2000012710001][2000012710015][2000012710018][2000012710019][2000012710020][2000012710021][2000012710022][2000012710023][2000012710024][2000012710025][2000012710026][2000012710027][2000012710028][2000012710029][2000012710030][2000012710031][2000012710032][2000012710033][2000012710034][2000012710056]
When a secured creditor issues a notification under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the only recourse for aggrieved persons (including borrowers and guarantors) is to file an appeal under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), not to seek an injunction in a civil court. (!) [2000012710001][2000012710015][2000012710026][2000012710027][2000012710033][2000012710034][2000012710042]
The civil court cannot grant an injunction against secured creditors once they have exercised their jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act, regardless of the nature of the pending civil suit (e.g., a partition suit). (!) [2000012710001][2000012

D. S. R. VARMA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THE order, dated 16th November 2004, passed by the n Additional District judge (Fast Track Court), Ongole, in I. A. No. 2282 of 2003 in O. S. No. 40 of 2003, filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. , is being assailed in this appeal.

( 3 ) DEFENDANTS 5 and 6 in the suit, who are respondents in the I. A. , are the appellants herein.

( 4 ) FOR convenience sake, in this judgment, parties will be referred to according to their array in the suit.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFFS filed the suit for partition of suit schedule property into 16 shares and to put them in separate possession of five such divided shares and also for mesne profits, as against defendants 1 to 4. It appears, plaintiffs also filed the present I. A. No. 2282 of 2003 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. seeking temporary injunction against defendants 5 and 6 restraining them from proceeding in any manner with their 5/ 16th share in the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the cause of action for filing the present suit was that defendants 1 to 4 did business incurring heavy debts without any benefit to the joint family and since

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(AP) 1075

D.S.R.VERMA, G.ROHINIBranch Manager, State Bank of India, Ongole – AppellantVersusChinigepalli Lathangi – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

D.S.R.VERMA, G.ROHINI
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ongole – Appellant
Versus
Chinigepalli Lathangi – Respondent