Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Ram Pal Soni & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Finance & Ors. – Respondent
Misc. Single No. 13556 of 2021
Decided on : 29-09-2021
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 17(1A), 13 - Security Interest (Enforcement), Rules, 2002 - Rule 8(6) - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter V Rule 2 - Territorial jurisdiction - Establishment of Tribunal - Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals - Enforcement of security interest - Whether Debts Recovery Tribunal within whose territorial jurisdiction secured asset is located, would only have the jurisdiction where application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act can be filed, or it can also be filed with such Debts Recovery Tribunal where, secured asset might not be located, but part of cause of action had arisen - Whether by issuance of notice under Section 13(2), (4) as also holding of e-auction, from Lucknow by the opposite party No. 3 at Lucknow, any part of cause of action has arisen within territorial jurisdiction of DRT, Lucknow – Held, Section 3 of the Act, 1993 does not provide that the Tribunal, either at Allahabad or at Lucknow, shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the respective areas specified in the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, 1993. Section 3 of the Act, 1993, only provides for establishment of Debts Recovery Tribunal, which has to exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority conferred on such Tribunal by or under the Act, 1993, and in considering this jurisdiction, power and authority of Tribunal, Section 19 of the Act, 1993, as also Section 17(1-A) of the SARFAESI Act, are required to be considered and cannot be ignored. The fact that a part of cause of action arises within the limit of the jurisdiction of more than one tribunal; in view of Section 19 of the Act, 1993 and Section 17(1-A) of the SARFAESI Act, would confer jurisdiction on all such Tribunals and in such a case the jurisdiction of any of such Tribunals cannot be held to be exclusive based on the notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, 1993 – Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard Shri Ambika Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri J. P. Maurya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party No. 1, Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 through video conferencing. The opposite party No. 2 is Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, which has passed the order under challenge.
2. For the reasons assigned in the order dated 02.07.2021, issuance of notice to the opposite party No. 5 was dispensed with.
3. The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
(ii) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties concerned not to disturb peaceful possession of the petitioners regarding property in question during the pendency of the writ petition in the interest of Justice.
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction be passed which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner No.1 is the borrower from opposite party No.4, United Commercial Bank, Branch Amethi, District Amethi (in short, ‘UCO Bank’). The petitioner No. 2 is the guarantor. The loan account of petitioners became non productive asset (NPA) on 31.03.2017.
5. The opposite party No. 3-Zonal Manager/Authorized Officer, UCO Bank from its Zonal Office at Lucknow, issued notice dated 03.05.2019, Annexure-3, under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement), Rules, 2002 (in short, ‘Rules, 2002’), framed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, ‘SARFAESI Act’), to hold public-e-auction of the property, i.e., the secured assets, fixing the date as 10.06.2019. Another notice dated 27.06.2019 was issued from the Branch Office of the UCO Bank-opposite party No. 4, to the petitioners to deposit the amount which had become overdue. The e-auction of the property was held by the Zonal Authority, Lucknow on 28.06.2019 and the petitioners were informed vide letter dated 03.07.2019. The petitioner No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 19204 (MB) of 2019, Ram Pal Soni Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 16.07.2019 on the ground of alternative remedy, available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
6. The petitioners, thereafter, filed Securitisation Application (SA) No. 541 of 2019, Ram Pal Soni and another Vs. Zonal Manager/Authorized Officer, UCO Bank and others, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (in short, ‘DRT, Lucknow’), under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, in which the respondent Bank raised a preliminary objection that as the security asset was located at Amethi, the DRT, Lucknow, had no jurisdiction, which was contested by the petitioners. The D.R.T., Lucknow vide order dated 06.08.2019, rejected the preliminary objection about its territorial jurisdiction finding that the demand notice and the sale notice were issued from the Authorized Officer at Zonal Office of the UCO Bank at Lucknow, the cause of action in part had arisen at Lucknow, and the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. An interim protection was also granted that till the date fixed, the respondent Bank may proceed with sale, but the sale deed will not be executed in favour of the auction purchaser.
7. The Bank, opposite parties filed Regular Appeal No. 14 of 2020, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, UCO Bank, Branch Office-Amethi, District Amethi Vs. Ram Pal Son
The court ruled that notice issued under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act constitutes part cause of action, allowing jurisdiction for the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Lucknow, and clarified that the SARF....
Article 226 of the Constitution of India was amended by the Constitution (15th Amendment) Act, 1963 whereby Clause (1A) was inserted in Article 226 thereby introducing the concept of 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.
Disputes regarding loan defaults under the SARFAESI Act are non-arbitrable and must be adjudicated by Debt Recovery Tribunals, emphasizing that civil court jurisdiction is excluded where statutory pr....
The amendment of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal does not affect the statutory recourse available to the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Rejection of plaint – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of matters which do not fall within jurisdiction of DRT or DRAT under Sections 17 and 18 of SARFAESI Act is not ousted or barred under pro....
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
