Back
GAURANG KANTH
Vishal Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. The Appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgement & Decree dated 10.04.2023 (`Impugned Judgment') passed by ADJ- 04 (East), Karkadooma Courts, New Delhi in Suit No.2977/2016 (Old No. 1093/2015) titled as Vishal Aggarwal & Anr. Vs Union Bank of India & Ors..
2. Learned Trial Court, vide the impugned Judgment was pleased to dismiss the `Suit for declaration, Permanent injunction & other reliefs' filed by the Appellants against the Respondents.
BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:
3. Respondent Nos.11 & 12 (husband and wife) were the absolute owners of Property bearing No. R-82/5, Ramesh Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 built on plot of land measuring 147.5 sq. yards, consisting of ground, first, second, third, fourth and the terrace floor (`Suit Property'). Respondent Nos.8, 9 &10 are the proprietorship firms of Respondent No.11.
4. The father of the Appellants, Late Sh. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal purchased the Ground floor of the suit property from Respondent Nos. 11 & 12 by virtue of the Agreement of Sale, registered Special Power of Attorney, registered General Power of Attorney, Affidavit, Money receipt, Registered Will, und
Once a party submits to the jurisdiction of the DRT and suffers an order, they cannot pursue their remedy before the Civil Court.
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.
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 lack jurisdiction over matters related to secured debts under the SARFAESI Act; aggrieved parties must approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
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.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that a civil court's jurisdiction is barred in respect of matters which can be taken cognizance of by the DRT under the SARFAESI Act, and that a bo....
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
