SANDEEP SHARMA
Nicon Ferrochem – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of relief sought under article 226 of the constitution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. events leading to the loss of machinery and theft. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. issues regarding maintainability of the petition. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's referral to precedent and implications for jurisdiction. (Para 21 , 22 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for the following main reliefs:
Allahabad Bank vs. Radha Krishna Maity
Bishundeo Narain vs. Seogeni Rai
Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1997) 6 SCC 450
Electrosteel Castings Ltd. vs. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. 2022 (2) SCC 573
Ganga Bai vs. Vijay Kumar and Others
ICICI Bank Limited and Others vs. Umakanta Mohapatra and Others
L. Chandrakumar vs. Union of India and Others
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others
State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41
Compensation claims against banks for theft during possession must be addressed in civil court, as writ jurisdiction is barred by SARFAESI Act.
Civil Courts have jurisdiction in SARFAESI Act matters only when the secured creditor has not initiated actions under the Act. Limitation laws apply strictly to such actions.
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 court emphasized the legislative intent to minimize judicial intervention until the stage of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and highlighted the availability of statutory remedies under the Act, h....
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.
Fraud allegations must provide specific particulars to circumvent the jurisdictional bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002; vague claims are insufficient.
Civil courts cannot entertain suits regarding matters under the SARFAESI Act, including injunctions against auction purchasers, as jurisdiction lies exclusively with the DRT.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.