Skip to main content

High courts differ on DRT jurisdiction

The Bombay High Court last week differed from the Delhi high court view in the matter of jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal when a dispute under the Securitisation Act is involved. In this case, GSL India Ltd vs Asset Reconstruction (India) Ltd, the debt recovery tribunal and the appellate tribunal in Mumbai had rejected the application of GSL India, maintaining the company had no jurisdiction in the matter as the property under proceedings under the Securitisation Act was situated in Gujarat.

Their view was that the tribunal in that state will have jurisdiction. The Bombay High Court reversed that position and ruled that the Mumbai tribunal could deal with the matter. Its interpretation of the provisions of the Debt Recovery Act, the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and the Securitisation Act differed from that of a full bench decision of the Delhi High Court, which is applicable in Delhi jurisdiction.

The Hon'ble court said -

1) Firstly, we are unable to agree with the finding of the Delhi High Court that the proceedings referred to in section 19(1) of the RDDB Act are merely proceedings for recovery of debt and not for enforcement of mortgage.

2) Secondly, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Delhi High Court that under section 19(23) of the RDDB Act, the DRT is required to send a copy of the Recovery Certificate for execution to the DRT within whose jurisdiction the property is situated.

3) We are also unable to agree with the Delhi High Court 3 2012 (6) Bom.C.R. 200 VRD 51 of 53 WP 73 of 14.doc judgment that in the RDDB Act, there is no mention of mortgage and an application under section 19(1) thereof is required to only specify the properties required to be attached and which may not necessarily be the mortgaged property. Section 2(g) of the RDDB Act and which defines the word "debt" would certainly take within its sweep a relief for enforcement of mortgage.

4) In view of our discussion earlier in this judgment, we hold that the DRT whilst deciding whether it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a Securitisation Application filed under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act would be guided by the principles enshrined in section 19(1) of the RDDB Act and not by section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rule is accordingly made absolute and the Petition is granted in terms of prayer clause (a).

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/duress-to-sign-away-dues-condemned-115122000687_1.html

Comments

  1. PandaGeneral26 May 2021 at 13:40

    Best Ways to Recover Scam Investment
    Learn best ways to recover from scam investment at Shield Forensics. Get effective solutions that help to recover your online stolen funds."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more