In Brief
This case concerns a dispute over an apartment mortgaged to State Bank of India by company directors through an equitable mortgage. When respondents claiming adverse interests challenged the bank's recovery action, the High Court allowed them to pursue their claims in another forum and directed the bank to deposit Rs 25 lacs in an interest-bearing account pending resolution. The Supreme Court set aside this order, holding that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act exclusively vests jurisdiction in DRT and DRAT for such matters. Civil courts cannot entertain parallel proceedings over secured assets already subject to tribunal jurisdiction. The Court also disallowed the deposit direction as wholly uncalled for.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.