Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras 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