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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

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

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more