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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more