Back
AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE
Mangaldham Properties LLP. – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Agarwal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.
1. Order dated September 29th, 2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior 2nd Division) Court Alipore, passed in T.S. No. 20521 of 2013, has been assailed in the present Application, wherein the court below has rejected defendant’s application under order VII rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking rejection of plaint.
2. Present opposite parties filed a suit for declaration for cancellation of deeds, permanent injunction, damages and other ancillary reliefs against the petitioners being aforesaid T.S. No. 20521 of 2013. In the said suit opposite party herein claimed that they are the absolute owners of the suit property, which is still under their possession. Previously on one occasion opposite party no. 1 and 2 had to go to Hyderabad for medical treatment and on good faith the opposite parties empowered defendant no.4, Mr. Baid to look after the suit property. It is alleged in the plaint that Mr. Baid misused the trust of the opposite parties and got one power of attorney executed fraudulently and taking advantage of the same he executed and registered a sale deed in favour of defendant no. 3 on January, 5 2010, setting up defendant no. 7 as an al
Jagdish Singh VS Heeralal - 2013 7 Supreme 568: Treatment is unclear. The description states "In securitization matters civil court have no jurisdiction," which asserts a legal principle but contains no keywords or phrases (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed) indicating judicial treatment by subsequent decisions. No evidence of how the case has been treated.
Jalan Inter Continental Hotels Pvt. Ltd. VS State Bank of India - 2017 0 Supreme(Cal) 379: Treatment is unclear. The description states "The main legal principle established is the complete ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters falling under the SARFAESI Act, as interpreted under Section 34," which summarizes the principle from the case but contains no keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment by subsequent decisions. No evidence of how the case has been treated.
Civil courts can adjudicate suits involving fraud and complex factual disputes, despite the SARFAESI Act's jurisdictional limitations.
Application against measures to recover secured debts – Jurisdiction - Jurisdiction of Civil Court is not ousted. However, Civil Courts have to be extremely cautious while granting any interim order ....
Civil courts' jurisdiction is barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act in matters that can be determined by Debt Recovery Tribunals.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act for matters within the DRT's purview, and vague fraud allegations do not suffice to maintain a civil suit.
The bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be extended to claims involving collusion and fraud, which are better addressed before the Civil Court.
Point of law: Even when the allegations made in the plaint are taken to be correct as a whole on their face value, if they show that the suit is barred by any law, or do not disclose cause of action,....
The civil court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of sale and mortgage deeds under the SARFAESI Act, and a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
