PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SURENDER SINGH BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The nationalised bank assails the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court on 30/7/2021. It is the stand of the bank that the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is barred under Sec. 34 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, 'the 2002 Act'). The Civil Court has rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff has alleged fraud played on him by the secured creditor i.e. the Bank. The Court has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd, etc, vs. Union of India and another., AIR 2004 SCC2371.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court is alleged to have stood as a guarantor to the loan amount disbursed to M/s Saphire Digital Printers (defendant No.l). On default, the proceeding under the 2002 Act has been initiated against the borrowers as well as guarantors. The respondent (plaintiff) claims to have not only signed the agreement of guarantee but he also deposited the original title deeds with the bank in lieu of the loan amount. In substance, the plaintiff while filing the suit has alleged as under

(3.) It is evident that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under the 2002 Act while granting liberty to any person including the borrower, who is aggrieved of any of the measures taken by the secured creditors to file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRT'). Sec. 17 of the 2002 Act is extracted as under