CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

An ingenious litigant defeating the very purpose for which the SARFAESI Act : SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


SEPTEMBER 23, 2021  

Ace Concrete Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the borrower') was a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of ready mixed concrete. The borrower had availed loans from respondent No.5 –Indian Overseas Bank. Borrower was, therefore, classified as 'Non­Performing Asset (NPA)' on 1.4.2011. On 20.2.2012, the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed a Securitisation Application being S.A.69 of 2012 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal­III, Chennai. The DRT granted an interim stay restraining the respondent Bank from proceeding further with the First Sale Notice dated 21.1.2012. An amount of Rs.1 crore came to be deposited before the DRT, Chennai, in S.A. No. 227 of 2012. This was on the pretext of an ongoing investigation by the CBI with regard to some fraudulent activities of the Officers of the respondent Bank. A sum of Rs.12 crore was paid to the respondent Bank against the sale of mortgaged property. The Madras High Court has restrained the Bank and the auction purchaser from taking physical possession of the mortgaged properties. It has also directed the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, to dispose of M.A. No.227 of 2012. C.R.P. PD. No.4410 of 2013 came to be dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 3.12.2013. The same was challenged by the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 before the DRAT, Chennai. The DRT, Chennai, allowed S.A. No.227 of 2012 and set aside the Second Sale Notice dated 9.7.2012 and consequent sale of the mortgaged properties and imposed cost of Rs.50,000/­ on the Bank for willfully violating the provisions of law. The DRAT, Chennai, allowed both the appeals and set aside the order dated 25.6.2018 passed by the DRT, Chennai. The auction purchaser also challenged the said order dated 6.9.2019. Vide the impugned common order dated 18.11.2019, all the four writ petitions were disposed of. SC observed Section 13 Rule 8 , 9 Of SARFASI Act -  transaction became a nonperforming asset - issued notices - no sale of an immovable property should take place before 30 days -  purpose - the secured asset derives the maximum price, and no one is allowed to exploit the vulnerable situation . Mortgagor debtor - right to redeem the property - if the tender is made by the borrower at the last moment before the sale or transfer - secured asset should not be sold or transferred - right to redemption stands extinguished on the sale certificate getting registered. The right to redemption stands extinguished on the sale certificate getting registered. Appeal Dismissed .

KARTHIK & ORS. 

 VERSUS 

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN & ORS.    

Latest Legal News