TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha for declaration and permanent injunction, have challenged the order dated 5-4-2004 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha holding that Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the said suit and thereby answering preliminary issue in the affirmative. 4. According to the applicants, they are the secured creditor and the debt obtained by respondent No. 3/defendant No. 3 was classified as non-performing asset. Hence, on 15-3-2003, the applicants issued notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") to respon- den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Civil Court was taken up as a preliminary issue and was decided by the learned trial Judge as stated earlier. The said order is under challenge. 7. Mr. A.M. Ghare, the learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that section 34 of the said Act provides that "no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine". Mr. Ghare submitted that section 17(1) of the said Act gives a right to appeal to any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in section 13(4) taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer and such person may make an applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with these submissions. It may be noted that the words "any person" in section 17 has been used in a wide sense and we cannot give restricted meaning to it as suggested by Mr. Dharmadhikari. 10. In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2004 SC 2371, the Apex Court has observed that : "To a very limited extent jurisdiction of the Civil Court can also be invoked, where for example, the action of the secured creditor is alleged to be fraudulent or their claim may be so absurd and untenable which may not require any probe whatsoever or to say precisely to the extent the scope is permissible to bring an action in the Civil Court in the cases of English mortgages." 11. On the basis of this observation, Mr. Dharmadhikari made n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. That being the position, in the present case, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to be co-parceners along with respondent No. 3 so as to hold that for mortgaging the suit property their consent was necessary. Thus, in the instant case, Civil Court has no jurisdiction and it is only Debts Recovery Tribunal which has got jurisdiction. 14. If respondent Nos. 1 and 2 feel that they are aggrieved by the steps taken by the applicants under section 13(4) of the Act, they are to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the said Act. Thus, the impugned order is patently illegal and cannot be sustained. It is, however, made clear that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are free to raise their contentions before Debts Recovery Tribunal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
