Until the notification under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 was issued, the jurisdiction of both DRTs in Ernakulam covered applications irrespective of any pecuniary limit.
The petitioner in the present case was constrained to approach the High Court after a securitisation application challenging the sale of the petitioner’s property was returned from DRT-I Ernakulam with a direction to present it before the Chennai DRT-I since the sale notice was for the recovery of a sum of ₹976.57 Crores.
The petitioner argued that the notification having been issued under the RDB Act, cannot cover applications filed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
It was also contended that the right of access of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons to a court of law has been prejudicially affected by taking it out of the State of Kerala and conferring it upon a Tribunal in another State which renders the fundamental right practically otiose.
Therefore, it was argued that the notification itself is ex-facie arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Source: Barandbench
