State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank Eunited Bank Of ... vs M/S Onkareshwar Enterprises & Anothers on 9 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
UTTAR PRADESH
REVISION PETITION NO. SC/9/RP/105/2024
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EUNITED BANK OF INDIA
PRESENT ADDRESS - BANSHI NAGAR CINEMA ROAD BRANCH HARDOI SASTRA HEAD
CIRCLE OFFICE BSNL BUILDING SITAPUR UP-261001LUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
M/S ONKARESHWAR ENTERPRISES & ANOTHERS
PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH PROP. 186/112 BAHRA SAUDAGAR BHAG 2 HARDOI
GRAMIN HARDOI UP 241001 PURANI LAKHAN WALI GALI NEAR PILA
MANDIRLUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK EUNITED BANK OF INDIA
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
M/S ONKARESHWAR ENTERPRISES & ANOTHERS
DATED: 09/12/2025
ORDER
RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW.
REVISION PETITION NO. 105 OF 2024 Punjab National Bank (e-United Bank of India), Banshi Nagar, Cinema Road Branch, Hardoi through Mr. Shankar Suvan Mishra Authorized Officer/Chief Manager, Sastra Head Circle Office, BSNL Building, Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh-261001....
.....Revisionist VERSUS
1. M/s Onkareshwar Enterprises through proprietor Shri Shiv Kant Tripathi; R/o 186/112, Bahra Saudagar Bhag 2, Hardoi (Gramin), Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh, 241001 (Purani Lakhan Wali Gali, Near Pila Mandir.....
2. M/s Onkareshwar Enterprises (Borrower) through proprietor Shri Shiv Kant Tripathi R/o 186/2, Banshi Nagar, Cinema Road, Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh 241001....
3. Shri Shiv Kant Tripathi (Borrower and Legal Heir of Late Smt. Satyabhama Tripathi (Guarantor and Mortgagor) S/o Shri Ravindra Kumar Tripathi (Annu Pradhan) proprietor M/s Onkareshwar Enterprises; Address-186/112, Bahra Saudagar Bhag 2 Purani Lakhan Wali Gali, Near Pila Mandir, Hardoi (Gramin), Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh 241001...
4. Shri Ravindra Kumar Tripathi (Annu Pradhan) S/o Ravindra Kumar Tripathi(Legal heir of Late Smt Satyabhama Tripathi (Guarantor and Mortgagor); R/o 186/112, Bahra Saudagar Bhag 2 Purani Lakhan Wali Gali, Near Pila Mandir, Hardoi (Gramin), Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh 241001....
5. Shri Keshavkant Tripathi alias Vikas S/o Ravindra Kumar Tripathi (Legal heir of Late Smt Satyabhama Tripathi (Guarantor and Mortgagor); R/o 186/112, Bahra Saudagar Bhag 2 Purani Lakhan Wali Gali, Near Pila Mandir, Hardoi (Gramin), Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh 241001....
6. Smt/Km Vandana Tripathi D/o Ravindra Kumar Tripathi(Legal heir of Late Satyabhama Tripathi; R/o 186/112, Bahra Saudagar Part 2 Old Lakhan Wali Gali, Near Pila Mandir, Hardoi (Rural), Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh 241001.......
7. Smt/Km Uma Tripathi D/o Ravindra Kumar Tripathi (Legal heir of Late Smt Satyabhama Tripathi (Guarantor and Mortgagor); R/o 186/112, Bahra Saudagar Bhag 2 Purani Lakhan Wali Gali, Pila Mandir ke pas, Hardoi (Gramin), Hardoi, Uttar Pradesh 241001...
.......Opposite Parties BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY, MEMBER For the Revisionist: Sri Akshay Bajpai, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.3: Sri Vishal Chaurasia, Advocate Dated : 09-12-2025 JUDGMENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDENT
1. This revision has been filed to assail the impugned order dated 16-02-2024 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Hardoi in Complaint Case No. 244 of 2023; Onkareshwar Enterprises Vs Punjab National Bank whereby the opposite party/present revisionist has been directed not to take any coercive action against the complainants/opposite parties during the pendency of the complaint case no. 244 of 2023.
2. We have heard Sri Akshya Bajpai, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vishal Chaurasia, holding brief for Sri Ravi Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.3 and perused the entire record.
3. Service of notice upon opposite party no.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been held to be sufficient, however, no one appeared for opposite party no.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is patently illegal and unsustainable because the learned District Consumer Commission lacked jurisdiction to pass impugned order because of the settled legal position in this regard.
5. His further submission is that the impugned order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is a matter of recovery proceedings which was initiated under Section 13(2) and 13(4) initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI ACT, 2002 is against the settled provision of the SARFAESI ACT 2002.
6. Par Contra learned Counsel for opposite party no.3 has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention and has submitted that the impugned order is well discussed and reasoned wherein no interference by the State Commission is warranted. His submission is that bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act does not apply to the District Commission as it is not a Court.
7. We have also perused the written submission filed by opposite party no.1 to 3.
8. Before we proceed further, we would like to refer to provisions contained in Section 34, 35 and 37 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which have a direct bearing on the point in issue they are quoted herein below :-
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).
(Emphasis added)
35. The provisions of this Act to override other laws.-The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything in consistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law
37. Application of other laws not barred. -The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force.
15. On a close reading of the aforementioned provisions of SARFAESI Act, it is evident that Section 34 prescribes the jurisdictional bar in respect of entertaining any suit or proceeding which can be entertained by the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal and specifically it has been mentioned that no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action in present or in future to be taken under the SARFAESI Act. Even if the reference to "Civil Court" in heading of the Section 37 of SARFAESI Act as well as in the narration of the sections is interpreted and understood in the context of section 9 of the CPC, the expression "other authority" must be given its full play, otherwise the legislative intent of Section 37 would be set at naught. There cannot be any iota of doubt that the expression "other authority"
will encompass the "Consumer Commissions".
16. It is settled principle of interpretation that heading of the section, which is also otherwise known as "internal aid" to construction does not necessarily reflect the import of the provisions thereof. It is trite that only in case of ambiguity one has to fall back on the internal aid. Once a language of the section is clear, the internal aid "heading" "could not be used for cutting down the wide application of the clear words used in the provisions". In this context reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Frick India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 689 more particularly paragraph-8 thereof which is extracted hereunder;".
"8. It is well settled that the headings prefixed to Sections or entries cannot controlled the plain words of the provision; they cannot also be referred to for the purpose of construing the provision are clear and unambiguous; nor can they be used for cutting down the plain meaning of the words in the provision. Only, in the case of ambiguity or doubt the heading or sub-heading may be referred to as an aid in construing the provision but even in such case it could not be used for cutting down the wide application of the clear words used in the provision. Sub-item (3) so construed is wide in its application and all parts of refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances and machines whether they are covered or not covered under sub-items (1) and (2) would be clearly covered under that sub-item. Therefore, whether the manufacturer supplies the refrigerating or air-conditioning appliances as a complete unit or not is not relevant for the levy of duty on the parts specified in sub- item (3) of Item 29A."
9. In view of what has been quoted above, we do not find any substance in argument submitted by learned Counsel for the revisionist that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 applies only to Civil Court and it is only Civil Court, whose jurisdiction is barred.
10. We can also usefully refer to para-5 of a judgment rendered by Hon'ble the NCDRC in Revision Petition No.3499 of 2012; Bank of Baroda Vs M/s Geeta Foods, decided on 08-11-2012 as under :-
"5. The State Commission cannot stay the SURFAESI Act as such. It is surprising to note how the banks would recover the money from their debtors if such like orders are permitted to prevail. In order to bring the case under the Consumer Protection Act, it is incumbent upon the complainant to show that there is deficiency on the part of the bank. No such deficiency in service has been alleged. The Bank is proceeding in accordance with law Under the circumstances, the order passed that the bank would not take coercive steps against the complainant appears to be illegal. No deficiency on the part of the bank was ever alleged. The State Commission has got hardly any jurisdiction to try this case. It cannot restrain the Debts Recovery Tribunal from proceeding against the complainant as per law. Consequently, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission, vacate the stay and give the permission to the petitioner-Bank to take coercive methods against the complainant as permitted by law only. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 3.12.2012 for further proceedings."
11. We also find it relevant to mention that Hon'ble the NCDRC vide its judgment dated 01-04-2013 passed in Standard Chartered Bank Vs Virendra Rai (Manu/CF/0337/2013). The relevant part of the judgment of Hon'ble the NCDRC passed in Standard Chartered Bank, supra is quoted herein below :-
"1. The Civil Court or any other authority cannot arrogate to itself the right to make decisions or interfere with the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'SARFAESI Act')-.
....5. We have already held that as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the District Forum or the State Commission have no power to interfere with the SARFAESI Act. The District Forum and State Commission are under the misconception that the Consumer Court is not a civil Court. In Patel Roadways v. Birla Yamaha Limited, IMANU /SC/ 0202/ 2000: (2000) CPJ 42 (SC): III MANU/ SC/ 0202/2000 (2000) SLT 554:
MANU/SC/0202/2000: AIR 2000 SC 461, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:
The contention that the use of the term 'suit' in Section 9 of the Carriers Act shows that the provision is applicable only to the cases filed in a civil Court and does not extend to proceedings before the National Commission which is a Forum to decide complaints by Consumers following a summary procedure cannot be accepted. The term 'suit' is a generic term taking within its sweeps all proceedings, initiated by, a party for realization of a right vested in him under law. The meaning of the term 'suit' also depends on the context of its use which in turn, amongst other things, depends on the Act or the rule in which it is used. No doubt the proceeding before a National Commission is ordinarily a summary proceeding and in an appropriate case where the Commission feels that the issues raised by the parties are too contentious to be decided in a summary proceeding it may refer the parties to a civil Court. That does not mean that the proceeding before the Commission is to be decided ignoring the express statutory provisions of the Carriers Act (Section 8) in a proceeding in which a claim is made against a common carrier as defined in the said Act. Accepting such a contention would defeat the object and purpose for which the Consumer Protection Act was enacted. A proceeding before the National Commission comes within the term 'suit".
........12. Last, but not the least, this Commission clearly, specifically and unequivocally held in Traxpo Trading Co. v. The Federal Bank Ltd., I MANU/CF/0174/2001: (2002) CPJ 31 (NC), that under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, jurisdiction of this Commission has been barred, where the Bank has filed 'suit for recovery', before DRT. Under these circumstances, the proceedings pending before the District Forum are hereby quashed and the revision petition is accepted. The complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the State Commission and District Forum to follow the order passed by this Commission, time and again, without caring whatever their personal views are."
12. Undisputedly, the learned District Consumer Commission has stayed the implementation of order dated 18-07-2024 passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, which is unsustainable for the reason discussed above, the same, therefore, deserves to be set-aside.
13. The instant revision petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is consequently set-aside.
14. There shall be no order as to cost.
15. Let this judgment/order be uploaded on the website of the Commission.
(SUDHA UPADHYAY) (JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Ashish, C-1
..................J
AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
PRESIDENT
..................
SUDHA UPADHYAY
MEMBER