Arbitration proceedings - sec.34, 35 and sec.17(2) - No civil suit maintainable as there is a bar and as there is a remedy provided to the aggrieved parties = "34. Civil Court not to have jurisdiction :- 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 any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)". Further, Section 35 of the Act reads as under: "35. The provisions of this Act to override other laws:- The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law."= Respondents 1 to 3 herein are plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit. They have filed the said suit for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants (i.e. respondent No.4 and the appellant herein) from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of schedule property either by means of alienations or making the subject matter of said property towards recovery of loans said to have been advanced to the Managing partner of Venkata Ramana Fruit Processing Unit.= The trial court held that there is a clear title dispute between respondent No.4 herein on one hand and respondents 1 to 3 on the other with respect to the property mortgaged to the appellant/defendant No.2, has held that the suit for declaration of their right in respect of the property is maintainable. Further, referring to the documentary evidence on record, by relying on the memorandum of partition agreement Ex.P-13, which shows division of properties under Exs.P-9 and P-10 into five shares and further recording a finding that if temporary injunction is not granted, there is possibility of the appellate-Bank taking steps for sale of plaint schedule properties under the Securitisation Act, has granted temporary injunction as prayed for. As against the same, this civil miscellaneous appeal is filed.= Normally, this Court does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court to pass an interim order in a pending matter but, having carefully examined the matter, we have felt persuaded to make an exception in this case because the order under challenge has the effect of defeating the very object of the legislation enacted by Parliament for ensuring that there are no unwarranted impediments in the recovery of the debts, etc., due to banks, other financial institutions and secured creditors. with regard to steps taken under Section 13(4) of the said Act, there is a bar provided under Section 34 of the Act from approaching the civil Court. Further, interpreting the provision under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act and the nature of proceedings therein, it is held that in fact, it is not an appellate proceeding, but rather an initial action which is brought before a forum prescribed under the 2002 Act, and is like a suit in CPC in the Courts of first instance. the bar under Section 35 and also the overriding effect of the provisions of the Securitisation Act given under Section 35, coupled with the remedy provided to the aggrieved parties under Section 17(2) of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the provisions referred above, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders of injunction granted by the trial Court. Accordingly, the CMA is allowed and the order dated 06.02.2013, passed in I.A.No.6 of 2013 in O.S.No.169 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned III- Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, is set aside. -2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Arbitration proceedings - sec.34, 35 and sec.17(2) - No civil suit maintainable as there is a bar and as there is a remedy provided to the aggrieved parties =
"34.    Civil Court not to have jurisdiction :- 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 any
power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks
and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)".
Further, Section 35 of the Act reads as under:
"35.    The provisions of this Act to override other laws:- The provisions of this
Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained
in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by
virtue of any such law."=
Respondents 1 to 3 herein are plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit.  They have
filed the said suit for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule
property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants (i.e. respondent No.4 and the appellant herein) from interfering with
their possession and enjoyment of schedule property either by means of
alienations or making the subject matter of said property towards recovery of
loans said to have been advanced to the Managing partner of Venkata Ramana Fruit 
Processing Unit.=
The trial court held that there is a clear title dispute between respondent No.4
herein on one hand and respondents 1 to 3 on the other with respect to the
property mortgaged to the appellant/defendant No.2, has held that the suit for
declaration of their right in respect of the property is maintainable.  Further,
referring to the documentary evidence on record, by relying on the memorandum of
partition agreement Ex.P-13, which shows division of properties under Exs.P-9
and P-10 into five shares and further recording a finding that if temporary
injunction is not granted, there is possibility of the appellate-Bank taking
steps for sale of plaint schedule properties under the Securitisation Act, has
granted temporary injunction as prayed for.  As against the same, this civil
miscellaneous appeal is filed.=
Normally, this Court does not interfere with the discretion exercised by the
High Court to pass an interim order in a pending matter but, having carefully
examined the matter, we have felt persuaded to make an exception in this case
because the order under challenge has the effect of defeating the very object of
the legislation enacted by Parliament for ensuring that there are no unwarranted
impediments in the recovery of the debts, etc., due to banks, other financial
institutions and secured creditors.
with regard to steps taken under Section 13(4)
of the said Act, there is a bar provided under Section 34 of the Act from
approaching the civil Court.  Further, interpreting the provision under Section
17 of the Securitisation Act and the nature of proceedings therein, it is held
that in fact, it is not an appellate proceeding, but rather an initial action
which is brought before a forum prescribed under the 2002 Act, and is like a
suit in CPC in the Courts of first instance.
the bar under Section 35 and also the overriding effect of the
provisions of the Securitisation Act given under Section 35, coupled with the
remedy provided to the aggrieved parties under Section 17(2) of the Act.  For
the aforesaid reasons and in view of the provisions referred above, this Court
is of the view that it is a fit case to allow the appeal by setting aside the
orders of injunction granted by the trial Court.
Accordingly, the CMA is allowed and the order dated 06.02.2013, passed in
I.A.No.6 of 2013 in O.S.No.169 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned III-
Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole, is set aside. -2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS