Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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