The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the RDDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act have an overriding effect over any inconsistent provisions in any other law or instrument, and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred with respect to issues which have to be heard and decided by the relevant authorities under these Acts.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Review Petition No.321/2017 in FAO No.303/2017

Review Petition No.317/2017 in FAO No.305/2017

1. These review petitions have been preferred by the respondent no.1 in the appeals. Respondent no.1 in the appeals is the plaintiff in the two suits filed in the trial court. Review petitions are filed seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court deciding two appeals being FAO Nos. 303/2017 and 305/2017. The two appeals were preferred by the appellant/Oriental Bank of Commerce, a defendant in the suit. In the suit, in which impugned order is passed which is subject matter of the FAO No. 303/2017, the appellant/bank is arrayed as defendant no.3. In the impugned order which is passed in the suit which is subject matter of FAO No. 305/2017, the appellant/bank is arrayed as defendant no.5. By the impugned orders dated 15.5.2017, the applications filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff in the suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) were allowed and the defendants in the suit including the appellant/bank were restrained from dispossessing the respondent no.1/plaintiff from the suit properties during the pendency of the suits. The suit property which is subject matter of the suit resulting in FAO No. 305/2017 is SFS Flat No.1104, 3rd Floor (with scooter garage), Pocket-GH-13, G-17, Area Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The property which is subject matter of the suit resulting in FAO No. 303/2017 is DDA Flat No. 781, Ground Floor, Pocket GH-13, G-17, Area Category II (MIG) Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The appeals FAO Nos. 303/2017 and 305/2017 were allowed in terms of the judgment delivered by this Court on 21.7.2017. The effect of the judgment passed by this Court dated 21.7.2017 was that the impugned order passed in the suits allowing the injunction applications of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC were modified by holding that it would not be that the respondent no.1/plaintiff would not be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit but that the respondent no.1/plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property except in accordance with law i.e. subject to the decision in the proceedings pending under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act) (renamed from 26.5.2017 as “The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993”) and also if any pending under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). By the judgment dated 21.7.2017 disposing of the appeals it has been held that in view of Sections 34 of the RDDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act the jurisdiction of civil court will be barred with respect to issues which have to be heard and decided by the relevant authorities under these Acts. The relevant paras of the judgment dated 21.7.2017 are 5, 6, 9 and 10 and these paras read as under:-

“5. In my opinion, the only limited modification which is required in the impugned order is in its para 16 containing the operative portion of the order which states that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff will not be dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Actually the injunction which should have been granted was that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff will not be dispossessed without due process of law. This is because the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred by virtue of Section 34 of the RDDBFI Act and Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. A civil court cannot decide any issue which will come up for decision before the Debt Recovery Tribunal/authority under the two Acts with respect to the issues involving loans granted by the Bank. As per Section 17 of the RDDBFI Act it is the Debt Recovery Tribunal as well as the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under the RDDBFI Act which has the authority to decide applications of banks and therefore all issues arising thereunder. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act also provides that civil cou