Bank sought rejection of a specific performance suit under Section 34 SARFAESI Act, arguing civil court jurisdiction was barred. High Court held specific performance claims cannot be determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, so no bar arose, and rejected the revision petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 141 OF 2024 (IO)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: Y.P. GOKUL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 062.
RESIDING AT NO.10, KHM BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 032.
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER. M/S. MAHAGHAR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.95, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, PAI LAYOUT, OPP: FOOD WORLD REGIONAL OFFICE, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR - SRI. K.N. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: PRADEEP H.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS CRP FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.12.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.III IN OS NO.2553/2022 ON THE FILE OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU., REJECTING THE IA NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(D) R/W SEC.94(E) AND SEC.151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondent No.1 instituted a suit seeking for a decree of specific performance in respect of the property on the basis of a registered agreement dated 29.01.2019 against several defendants including the Bank to which the property had been mortgaged.
cannot be a matter, which could be decided by the Debt recovery Tribunal and therefore, there would be a bar for instituting the suit.
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).
jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be barred in respect of any suit, in respect of a subject matter of which only the Debts recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal was empowered to determine. The entitlement of the person to secure a decree for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale cannot obviously be a subject matter of a proceeding before the Debuts Recovery Tribunal and such a proceeding cannot be entertained by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI ACT. Therefore,
the question of there being a bar under Section 34, would
not arise.
Sd/JUDGE
SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
1 issue framed by the court
Does the bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act require rejection of a suit for specific performance against a mortgaging bank?
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Karnataka Bank Ltd.
Sri Rajashekar J
M/s. Mahaghar Properties Pvt. Ltd.
N S Sanjay Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
