Ndm 1 ao.866.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 866 OF 2009 IN S.C. SUIT NO. 1677 OF 2009 Akshat Sanjay Agarwal and another. ... APPELLANTS Vs. Sanjay Ramesh Agarwal and others. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Mr. P.S. Dani with Mr. Purohit i/b Ms. S.K. Mistry for Appellants Mr. Nainesh Amin, Advocate for Respondent No.6. Mr. Jay Bhatia, Advocate for Respondent No.5. ----- CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 27th August, 2009. P.C. 1 This is an appeal filed by the Appellants against the order dated 04 th August, 2009 passed by the learned Judge City Civil Court, Bombay rejecting ad-interim relief in Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiffs. It is seen that ad-interim relief has been refused because according to the learned Judge of the trial Court under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 precluded the Civil Court from exercising jurisdiction in respect of any matter, which Debt Ndm 2 ao.866.09.sxw Recovery Tribunal empowers to determine. The suit filed by the Plaintiff is for a declaration that the Mortgage-Deed executed by their grandfather, who was a Karta of a HUF was executed without legal necessity. In this suit, interim relief are sought in respect of the action taken under the Securitisation Act. The Plaintiffs first sought to agitate this matter before Debt Recovery Tribunal, but the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to grant relief on the grounds, which were raised before it. The Plaintiffs have filed an appeal before the DRAT, which is pending. While referring to Section 34, the Civil Court has not referred to Section 17 (2) of the aforesaid Act, which defines the nature of the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In my view, Section 17 (2) needs to be read in conjunction with Section 34 and more detailed consideration in this regard is required. It is also seen that while Section 34 prohibits a Civil Court from granting an injunction against the action taken under the said Act, it does not prohibit passing other orders, which would secure the interest of parties. In my view, the appeal can be disposed of by direction that pending the disposal of the motion the Court Receiver Bombay High Court be appointed as the receiver of the property being Flat No. 11/A, Vidya Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Malabar and Cumballa Hill, Mumbai and the basement premises of Vidya Niwas Co-operative Society Limited, Malabar Hill and Cumbulla Hill, Bombay, which is the suit property. On his taking formal possession, Plaintiff No.1 will be appointed by him as joint agent of the Receiver subject to payment of the security and royalty. It is made clear that there is no receiver in respect of the property, which are mortgaged to Respondent No.6 and that Respondent No.6 will be entitled to take such action Ndm 3 ao.866.09.sxw as their entitlement in accordance with law. The trial Court will be at liberty to pass such further orders relating to the receiver when the Notice of Motion is decided. Appeal disposed off with these directions. 2 The advocate for the Defendant No. 5 seeks to stay of this order for the period of six weeks from today, subject to the condition that Defendant No. 5 will maintain status-quo for the period of six weeks. R.S. MOHITE, J. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1064 OF 2009 P.C. As Appeal from Order is disposed off, Civil Application also stands disposed off. R.S. MOHITE, J.