Dismissed

Om Prakash v. Canara Bank Branch Pali and Anr.

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2023CSA/339/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged lower court decisions dismissing a suit for permanent injunction. The appellate court affirmed that such suits involving relief under Section 34 of the SRA 2002 fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, not civil courts.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal and the stay petition were dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal over the subject matter.

Om Prakash Vs Canara Bank Branch Pali and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:23394]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 339/2017

¶4

Om Prakash S/o Sh. Laxman Das, B/c Vaishnav R/o 82, Dhola Chotra Pali Proprietor Sh. G. Industries Pali. Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Canara Bank, Branch Pali Through Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mahaveer Circle In Front Of Session Court Pali.

¶8

Canara Bank, Head Office- Bangalore Through Branch Manager, Canara Bank Branch Pali.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. P.D. Vaishnav

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

25/07/2023

¶14

The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.2017 passed by the District Judge, Pali in Civil Appeal No.27/16 whereby the judgment and decree/order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Pali (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial Court’) in Civil Original No.150/16 has been affirmed. Vider order dated 31.08.2016, learned trial Court proceeded on to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendant Bank and consequently, the suit as preferred by the plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed.

¶15

Vide order dated 31.08.2016, learned trial Court specifically found that the reliefs as prayed for in the suit could not have been

¶16

(2 of 2) [CSA-339/2017]

¶17

[2023:RJ-JD:23394]

¶18

entertained by the civil Court in terms of Section 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘Act of 2002’).

¶19

A perusal of the reliefs as prayed for in the plaint, Section 34 of the Act of 2002 and order dated 31.08.2016 makes it clear that the plaint as preferred by the plaintiff could not have been entertained by the civil Court as only Debt Recovery Tribunal would be empowered to entertain the suit for the reliefs as prayed for.

¶20

The findings as arrived to by the Courts below being totally in consonance with law, no substantial question of law arise in the present appeal and the same is therefore dismissed .

¶21

The stay petition also stands dismissed.

¶22

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶23

12-Vij/-

Om Prakash v. Canara Bank Branch Pali and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. Canara Bank Branch Pali and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushkarna Brahmin Samaj Sansthan, Barmer Vs Shyamdas Acharaya

Seema Singh Vs Anshuman Singh Shekhawat

Chunni Lal Vs Tiwari Dadhich Sampati Trust and Ors.

Board of Secondary Education Vs Mohit Wadera

Mewara Kshatriya Samaj Vs Devi Singh Solanki and Anr.

Urban Improvement Trust Vs Chunnilal Gameti