Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. It is also stated in the application(s) that in order to safeguard the investments already made by the respondent to the tune of more than Rs.1800 crores, out of which more than Rs.88 crores paid to the petitioner and to safeguard the employment of more than 7500 employees out of which there are 1800 Doctors and to keep the medical eye centres running which are in the number of about 200, the respondent is willing to give further properties, numbering 9, having pari-passu charge, which properties are with City Union Bank Ltd. which has outstanding of about Rs.52 crores but the properties are worth more than Rs.78 crores. Thus, the petitioner would be validly secured with respect to the 10 properties as mentioned in the applications.

23. It is also stated in the application that the petitioner be asked to accept pari passu charge of immovable assets which are already mortgaged with some other banks.

24. I agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Financial Institution and is not covered under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as such, like Banks. The petitioner cannot seek possession or sale of any such property under the said Act. Thus, creating a second, third or pari passu charge of any such immovable property will not help the petitioner. The petitioner is also not willing to accept any pari passu charge of already mortgaged immovable properties of the respondent with some banks, when it has collateral assets financed by it under the present Loan Agreements hypothecated to it. The purpose of hypothecation of movable assets is to sell the assets to recover the dues of the lender if the borrower fails to repay the loan amount. The loan tenure of the 9 Loan Agreements has already ended and the outstanding of the respondent is approx. Rs.40 crores