Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The trial court after hearing the parties by the impugned order allowed the objections and rejected the plaint on the ground that it is barred under section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. The trial court has even held that having regard to the valuation of the suit plaintiff has not paid the proper Court fee. We, therefore, have to examine whether the trial court has committed an illegality in rejecting the plaint.

5. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions, Act, 1993 ( in short the RDDBFI Act") was enacted because banks and financial institutions were experiencing considerable difficulties in recovering loans and enforcement of securities charged with them. This Act provided for the establishment of Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. For few years the new dispensation under the RDDBFI Act worked well and the officers appointed to man the tribunals worked with great zeal for ensuring that cases involving recovery of the dues of banks and financial institutions were decided expeditiously. But with the passage of time the proceedings before the tribunals stopped bringing desired results. A committee was, therefore, constituted to suggest measures for expediting the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions. The committee in its report made various suggestions for bringing about radical changes in the existing adjudicatory mechanism for facilitating speedy recovery of the dues of banks and also for quick resolution of disputes arising out of the action taken for recovery of such dues. The Government of India accepted the suggestions and that led to enactment of the SARFAESI Act in the year 2002 by which for the first time the secured creditors have been empowered to take steps for recovery of their dues without intervention of the Courts or Tribunals (See United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon, AIR 2010 SC 3413).

7. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court by declaring that 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 RDDBFI Act.

8. It is now well settled principle of law that there is a strong presumption that civil courts have jurisdiction to decide all questions of civil nature. The exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts is, therefore, not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must either be "explicitly expressed or clearly implied". It is a principle by no means to be whittled down" and has been referred to as a "fundamental rule". As a necessary corollary of this rule provisions excluding jurisdiction of civil courts and provisions conferring jurisdiction on authorities and tribunals other than civil courts are strictly construed. The existence of jurisdiction in civil courts to decide questions of civil nature being the general rule and exclusion being an exception, the burden of proof to show that jurisdiction is excluded in any particular case is on the party raising such a contention. The rule that the exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts is not to be readily inferred is based on the theory that civil courts are courts of general jurisdiction and the people have a right, unless expressly or impliedly debarred, to insist for free access to the courts of general jurisdiction of the State. Indeed, the principle is not limited to civil courts alone, but applies to all the courts of general jurisdiction including criminal courts. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.Singh 13th Edition, 2012 PP 757 to 760).