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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more