DRT Is Not Competent To Declare The Petitioner As A Trespasser In The Suit Property And For His Eviction There from

A three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nitin Gunwant Shah Vs. Indian Bank & Ors {(2012) 8 SCC 324; Decided on July 10, 2012} has observed as follows.

ALTAMAS KABIR, J. (concurring)

“5. Furthermore, in the said suit, the Bank also sought a declaration against the petitioner herein, as the fifth defendant in the suit, that he was a trespasser in the suit premises without any right, title or interest and also prayed for a decree for his eviction there from. Unfortunately, with the enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit filed by the Bank came to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bombay, in terms of Section 31 of the new Act and the same was numbered as OA No.358 of 2000. The Court and the parties appear to have overlooked the fact that in the suit relief had also been prayed for against the petitioner for declaring him as a trespasser in the suit property and for his eviction there from, which relief the Debts Recovery Tribunal was not competent to give. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, in the year 2012, Hon’ble Supreme Court Court explicitly observed that the Debts Recovery Tribunal was not competent to declare the petitioner as a trespasser in the suit property and for his eviction there from.

DRT Has No Jurisdiction

























 hh

 

 

About Us

Narendra has around 26 years of rich experience in the domain of Companies Act, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Consumer Protection Act, SICA, 1985,

more about us
get in touch
  • 199, Alkapuri,Dewas-455001 (MP) India

  • (07272) 421309

  •  
  •  9424858767

Subscription

Get subscribed with us!!!!!