Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2019) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15277 = 2019(1) L.A.R. 651
Decided on: 05.12.2019
Present:
Mr.M.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Aalok Jagga, Advocate for the respondents.
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002), Section 13, 17, 34 -- Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India dated 17.3.2016 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 9 – Proceedings under SARFAESI Act – Civil Suit -- Application under order 39 Rule 1 & 2 -- Maintainability of -- Question of jurisdiction – Stage of – RBI guidelines providing for revival and rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) with loan limits upto 25 crores, sending the case to the Committee before initiating any appropriate action under the SARFAESI Act – Trial Court dismissed the application as barred u/s 34 of the 'SARFAESI Act' -- Lower Appellate Court, relying upon guidelines of RBI dated 17.3.2016, reversed the order of the trial Court – Challenged by Bank in revision -- Held;
-- Whether the company of the plaintiffs falls under MSME or not would be a question of fact to be debated before the trial Court at the relevant stage with reference to the evidence to be led by the parties.
-- For grant of temporary injunction, three principles are required to be appreciated i.e. existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to be caused in the event of non grant of temporary injunction
-- Court having no jurisdiction can pass interim order till such time issue of jurisdiction is decided by the Court on merits.
No justification to interfere in revision petition, same is dismissed.
(Para 2-4)
Cases referred:
1. Basakhi Ram vs. Suresh Kumar, 1998 (3) RCR (Civil), 175.
2. Tayabbhai M Bagasarwalla vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt.Ltd., 1997 (2) RCR, 473 (SC).
***
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) –
1. This revision petition has arisen out of the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the order dated 25.5.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Gurdaspur was reversed.
2. Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC on the ground that no prima facie case is made out for grant of temporary injunction as jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short 'SARFAESI Act'). Lower Appellate Court, on the basis of guidelines of Reserve Bank of India dated 17.3.2016, reversed the order of the trial Court on the ground that under the aforesaid guidelines, a frame work for revival and rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises having loan limits upto 25 crores is provided and for that the case should have been sent to the Committee before initiating any appropriate action under the SARFAESI Act. Whether the company of the plaintiffs falls under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises or not would be a question of fact to be debated before the trial Court at the relevant stage with reference to the evidence to be led by the parties. For grant of temporary injunction, three principles are required to be appreciated i.e. existence of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to be caused in the event of non grant of temporary injunction.
3. It is also relevant to note that the Court having no jurisdiction can pass interim order till such time issue of jurisdiction is decided by the Court on merits. Reference can be made to Basakhi Ram vs. Suresh Kumar, 1998 (3) RCR (Civil), 175 and Tayabbhai M Bagasarwalla vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt.Ltd., 1997 (2) RCR, 473 (SC). At this stage no consideration on merits can be made by any Court except to consider the case on the basis of prima facie consideration. Any observation made herein above shall not be construed to be the final opinion on the merits of the case.
4. For the reasons recorded herein above, I see no justification to interfere in this revision petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********