9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vious owner Smt. Pushpa Jain for ₹ 1.00 lakh by virtue of general power of attorney, agreement to sell, Will, etc. and that he apprehended dispossession by the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner in its written statement alleged that Smt. Pushpa Jain sold the first and second floors with terrace rights of the said property to her husband Shri Shree Chand Jain by registered Sale Deed dated 23.10.2001. The said Shri Shree Chand Jain had applied for loan of ₹ 8,00,000/- against the said property by offering equitable mortgage thereof in favour of the petitioner. He failed to pay the loan amount. The petitioner issued a notice dated 21.7.2003 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal under Section 13 of the Act which can be enforced in case of any security interest for securing repayment of any financial asset exceeding ₹ 1.00 lakh. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant injunction has been barred under Section 34 of the Act. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 despite service. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the contentions raised by the petitioner and states that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 and also perused the documents on record. In Harshavardhan Chokkani Vs. Bhupendra N. Patel, AIR 2002 SC 1373, the Supreme Court held as under :- G€˜G€˜......Nonetheless, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the security interest of respondent No.2 is to the tune of ₹ 4,90,000/-. Furthermore, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have also not shown whether they were a consortium claiming the amount above ₹ 10.00 lakhs. The petitioner and respondent No.2 had filed separate applications in respect of their separate claims. Sec.34 of the Securitisation Act provides as under :- G€˜G€˜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 and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
