J. J. MUNIR
Aryavrat Bank Branch, Ramghat Road Road, District Aligarh – Appellant
Versus
Malka Bansal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
This revision is directed against an order of Mr. Mohd. Firoz, Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Aligarh dated August the 22nd, 2022, rejecting the defendant-revisionist' application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') made in Original Suit No. 985 of 2021.
2. The plaintiff-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, Smt. Malka Bansal and Km. Keshvi Bansa, who shall hereinafter be called 'the plaintiffs' (unless the context requires a different reference), instituted O.S. No. 985 of 2021 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Aligarh on 13.12.2021 for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction.
3. The facts leading to the suit and the plaintiffs' case shortly put is that House No. 2/473, Vishnupuri, Lane next to Sumangalam Nursing Home, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh (for short, 'the suit property') was built on a part of land taken on lease by Shiv Prasad Bansal on 6.10.1937. It bore Plot No. 40. Shiv Prasad Bansal died on 20.4.1973. He was survived by his heirs and LRs, to wit, Satyendra Kumar Bansal, Devendra Kumar Bansal and Vipin Kumar Bansal. In a family settlement, the suit property was acknowledged to the share
State Bank of Patiala v. Mukesh Jain and another
Urvashiben and another v. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others
Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
Bank of Rajasthan Limited v. VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Limited
T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and another
R.V. Homes (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.
The court established that suppression of material facts regarding a mortgage can bar a civil suit under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff cannot suppress material facts to avoid a statutory bar and maintain a suit. The Court has the authority to consider circumstances....
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.
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.
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 ....
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.