AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—The appellant filed a petition under Order XXXIII of the CPC seeking leave to institute a suit as an indigent person. In that, she filed an interlocutory application seeking an order of temporary prohibitory injunction restraining a secured creditor and its officers from invoking the provisions of Sections 13(4) and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter, the ''SARFAESI Act'', for short. By the impugned order, the court below, on an elaborate consideration of the facts also, dismissed that application. This appeal is hence filed.
We do not deem it necessary to go into the facts of the case at all. As already noticed, the relief sought for is for an order of temporary prohibitory injunction against invoking the provisions of Sections 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, among other things, provides that 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 the SARFAESI Act or under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as the ''RDB Act''. Therefore, there is a clear bar created by statute law on the grant of injunction against any action taken or to be taken under the SARFAESI Act or the RDB Act. On this short ground, the court below ought to have dismissed the application for injunction as barred by law.
For the aforesaid reason, without entering on any adjudication on the merits as to the rival contentions on facts, we cannot but affirm the dismissal of the application for temporary injunction.
Learned Counsel for the appellant stated that the application filed under Order XXXIII CPC for leave to institute the suit as an indigent person is still pending and even under that Order, the court has to examine whether the application or suit is barred by any law. Obviously, it will be open to the court below to consider such issue also while dealing with the aforesaid application.
Since any action taken under the SARFAESI Act can be faced in terms of the provisions contained in that Act by way of proceedings before the DRT or the Appellate Tribunal as the case may be, it is clarified that no such right of the petitioner is impaired by the impugned order and this judgment.
Subject to what is stated above, this FAO is dismissed.