Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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