Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

06. Learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that the Debt Recovery Tribunal is having inherent lack of jurisdiction, so far as matter of fraud, or other disputed questions of facts are concerned and, 4 lpa333.10 therefore, perhaps the Debt Recovery Tribunal ("DRT" for short) did not go into the said questions of disputed facts since there is inherent lack of jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the Securitization Act"). It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that according to Section 17 of the Securitization Act, the DRT is required to look into whether the procedure is properly adopted or not. and the DRT is not bound to conduct the full fledge trial under the said provision. it is further submitted that sofar as allegations of fraud are concerned, the same are required to be adjudicated before the Cooperative Court as the Cooperative Court is empowered under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act ("MCS Act" for short) to look into the disputed questions of facts and to conduct full-

08. Learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the dispute which was filed by the appellant under Section 91 of the MCS Act, was maintainable and as such, it is the contention of the appellant that there is no security interest created over the properties of the appellant and, therefore, the provisions of the Securitzation Act are not applicable.

11. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the impugned order dated 18.10.2010 is erroneous and unsustainable and hence, it be quashed and set aside by allowing the present Letters patent Appeal.

12. Shri V.D.Sapkal, learned counsel i/by Shri D.D.Pokhrankar, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 4, countered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, and opposed the present appeal, vehemently. It is pointed out by learned counsel for Respondent no.1 that the appellant herein had filed Writ Petition No. 4168 of 2007 before this Court which was ultimately withdrawn by her on 27.7.2007. Thereafter, the Appellant had filed Dispute before the 7 lpa333.10 Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act, on 6.9.2007 and also approached the DRT, by filing proceedings before it, on 2.11.2007 and the law of election expects that once a particular remedy is resorted to, it has to be pursued till its conclusion. It is also submitted that the Securitization Act is a complete code in itself and everything can be considered under section 17 thereof.

13. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that since the appellant approached the DRT, the said remedy has to be taken to its logical end. In the said context, it is pointed out that the appeal filed by the present appellant before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is still pending before the said forum and since the appellant is not pursuing the said appeal, action of the appellant to file dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act before the Cooperative Court is unwarranted and barred by Section 34 of the Securitization Act, since notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act was issued by Respondent No. 1 to the appellant. In the said context, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 placed reliance on National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mastan, 2005 AIR (SCW) 6305.