# Afsar Khan and another v. Central Bank of India, Kanpur Nagar

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1629
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51137 of 2012
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/afsar-khan-and-another-v-central-bank-of-india-kanpur-nagar-42385
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri K.R.S. Jadaun

Secularization
and
Reconstruction
of
financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002-Section 34-Bar
of Civil Courts Jurisdiction-Section 17 of
Recovery of Debts due to Banks and
Financial Institution Act 1993-authorized
the Tribunal to decide the application of
Bank-but if amount is less than 10 Lakhs
not to be recovered by Tribunal- impugned
notice
at
pre-litigation
stage
for
settlement purpose by exercising power
under Section 22 C of L.S.A. Act 1987-can
not be termed without jurisdiction.

Held: Para-9

Thus, in view of totality of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, the issuance of
the notice by the Lok Adalat at a prelitigation stage in exercise of powers under
Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority
Act, 1987 is not at all without jurisdiction.
It is only a device to explore the possibility
of any settlement instead of getting the
dispute adjudicated by the court.

## Text

3 All] Afsar Khan and another V. Central Bank of India, Kanpur Nagar
1629
such a manner as to frustrate the object of
conferring such discretion or the policy for
implementing which such discretion has
been conferred. Though the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in AIR 1967
SC 1170 (State of Madhya Pradesh and
another Vs. Thakur Bharat Singh) dealt
with the applicability of Article 358 of the
Constitution
of
India
(suspension
of
provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution
during emergencies) but has held that all
executive action which operates to the
prejudice of any person must have the
authority of law to support it, and the terms
of Article 358 do not detract from that rule. It
has further been held held that even the
Article 358 expressly authorises the State to
take legislative or executive action provided
such action was competent for the State to
make or take, but for the provisions
contained in Part III of the Constitution.

9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual
aspect and also the law and settled legal
propositions discussed above, we are of the
view that the order impugned passed by the
respondent no. 2 is not sustainable in nature
and the present writ petition deserves to be
allowed. Hence, in totality, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order
impugned dated 14th August, 2012 passed
by the respondent no. 2 stands quashed,
meaning thereby the resolution as taken by
the Gram Panchayat on 10th July, 2012 in a
democratic manner in recommending the
name of the petitioner stands revived.
Appropriate action will be taken by the
authority concerned on the basis of such
resolution for allotment of fair price shop to
the petitioner.

10. No order is passed as to costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51137 of 2012

Afsar Khan and another
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank of India, Kanpur Nagar

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Piyush Shukla
Sri Pratush Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.R.S. Jadaun

Secularization
and
Reconstruction
of
financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002-Section 34-Bar
of Civil Courts Jurisdiction-Section 17 of
Recovery of Debts due to Banks and
Financial Institution Act 1993-authorized
the Tribunal to decide the application of
Bank-but if amount is less than 10 Lakhs
not to be recovered by Tribunal- impugned
notice
at
pre-litigation
stage
for
settlement purpose by exercising power
under Section 22 C of L.S.A. Act 1987-can
not be termed without jurisdiction.

Held: Para-9

Thus, in view of totality of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, the issuance of
the notice by the Lok Adalat at a prelitigation stage in exercise of powers under
Section 22C of the Legal Services Authority
Act, 1987 is not at all without jurisdiction.
It is only a device to explore the possibility
of any settlement instead of getting the
dispute adjudicated by the court.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. This is a petition for quashing of the
notice annexure-2 to the writ petition issued
1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
by the District Legal Services Authority to
the petitioners stating that the Central Bank
of India has initiated a drive to settle all
outstanding Bank dues on lump sum basis by
negotiations before moving to the court for
its recovery and therefore you are called
upon to enter appearance for settlement of
the dues of Rs. 6,02,993/-.

2. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the
aforesaid notice is without jurisdiction, as the
jurisdiction of civil court is barred by Section
34 of the Secularization and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after
referred to as the 'Act').

3. Section 34 of the above Act
provides that no civil court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or
proceedings in respect of any matter
which can be determined by a Debts
Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate
Tribunal. It clearly means that the
jurisdiction of the civil court stands
excluded in respect of matters which are
cognizable by Debts Recovery Tribunal
or the Appellate Tribunal.

4. Section 17 of the Recovery of
Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 authorizes the
Debts Recovery Tribunal to decide
applications of the Bank and financial
institutions for recovery of debts due to
such banks and financial institutions.
However, Section 1 Sub-section 4 of the
said Act clearly lays down that the
aforesaid Act would not be applicable
where amount of debts due to any bank or
financial
institutions
is
less
than
Rs.10,000,00/-. Thus, the recovery of any
amount
by
the
bank
or
financial
institution of a sum of Rs. 10,000,00/- and
less would not be covered by the
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and
Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and
would not be cognizable by Debt Recovery
Tribunal.The Debts Recovery Tribunal
covers matters relating to recovery of
loan/dues of Rs. 10,000,00/- and above.

5. In this view of the matter, the bar
of jurisdiction contained in Section 34 of
the Act would not apply in respect of
recovery of Rs. 6,02,993/-.

6. Apart from the above, so far no
proceedings before the civil court or
before the permanent Lok Adalat have
been instituted by the bank for recovery
of the aforesaid amount.

7. The notice impugned has been
issued at a pre-litigation stage in exercise
of powers under Section 22C of the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 for the
purposes of making a settlement, if
possible, before bringing any dispute for
adjudication before the court.

8. In the end learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the matter can not
even be resolved at any stage by the Lok
Adalat, in as much as, it is not a matter
relating to the public utility service. This
is a matter which the petitioners can
agitate before the Lok Adalat pursuant to
the impugned notice.

9. Thus, in view of totality of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
issuance of the notice by the Lok Adalat
at a pre-litigation stage in exercise of
powers under Section 22C of the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 is not at all
without jurisdiction. It is only a device to
explore the possibility of any settlement
3 All] Smt. S. Ravis V. The Judge Small Cause Courts & Others
1631
instead of getting the dispute adjudicated
by the court.

10. The petitioner can appear and show
cause before the Lok Adalat pursuant to the
above notice.

11. Accordingly, I am of the view that
no case for exercising any extra-ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is made out.

12. The writ petition is devoid of merit
and is dismissed.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52749 of 1999

Smt.S.Ravis

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Judge Small Cause Courts & Others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.D. Saunders

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Komal Mehrotra,
Sri M.A. Qadeer
Sri Rajesh Tandon
Sri Shamim Ahmad

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting rent and Eviction) Act 1972Section 20 (4) (a)-first date of hearingdate for filing W.S. fixed 10-08-1988entire amount deposited on 04.08.1988non compliance founded on ground of
rate of rent as Rs. 240-while finding
recorded about monthly rent Rs. 40/-
findings can not be said to be perversepetition dismissed.
Held: Para-17

In the present case when I apply the
aforesaid dictum, I find that deposit
made on 4.8.1988 satisfy requirement of
deposit made on the first date of hearing
of the suit. In fact in appears that
dispute
raised
by
petitioner
was
regarding rate of rent and his entire
claim of non compliance of Section 20(4)
was founded on the ground that monthly
rent was Rs.240/- per month while the
Courts below have determined monthly
rent at Rs.40/- per month and this is a
finding
of
fact
in
respect
whereto
nothing has been shown perverse or
contrary to record.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1982 SC 816; 1995 (1) ARC 563; 1993 (4)
SCC 406; (1999) 8 SCC 31; 2002 (3) SCC 49;
AIR 2002 SC 2520; 2001 (2) AWC 1468; 2004
(56) ALR 460; 2004 (57) ALR 233; 2005 (60)
ALR 697; 2006 (3) ARC 657; 2006 (2) ARC
208; Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19834 of
2003 (Sri Om Prakash Vs. Sri Anil Kumar)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.D.Saunders, learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
Sri
M.A.Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Sri Shamim Ahmad, Advocate for the
respondents.

2. The suit filed by petitioner for
ejectment
of
respondent
no.3
from
accommodation in question has been
decreed partly to the extent of recovery of
arrears of rent by permitting landlord to
withdraw
the
amount
deposited
by
respondent-tenant under Section 20(4) of
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") but
the suit for the relief of ejectment has been
dismissed vide order dated 14.10.1996 and
the said order has been confirmed by
dismissing
petitioner's
revision
vide
judgment dated 23.9.1999.