Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. At the outset, the issue regarding the grievance of the petitioner against the concerned bank is taken up. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that she was the guarantor for the financial accommodation availed from the concerned bank by the son of the petitioner. The documents which are annexed to this writ petition do not disclose as to whether an equitable mortgage was Page No.# 7/11 created in respect of the immovable property of the petitioner.

14. Under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, unless a property is a secured asset, the bank might not be able to invoke the said provision. Therefore, in the absence of any statement that no equitable mortgage was created in respect of the immovable properties of the petitioner in respect of the financial accommodation availed by the son of the petitioner, there was no way for the Court to arrive at a considered opinion that the assets which were sold off in exercise of the powers under the SARFAESI Act was not a security asset in favour of the concerned bank.

16. In the present case in hand, the petitioner has annexed at page 122 to 124 of the writ petition, copy of the sale notice advertisement in a newspaper. She has also annexed a copy of Bank's notice dated 06.06.2023 at page 125-126 of the writ petition, which is a notice to the borrower to vacate the mortgage property. From a copy of a letter dated 14.06.2023, which is annexed at page 127 of the writ petition, it also appears that one of the partners of the firm that had availed financial accommodation from the concerned bank had raised an objection before the District Magistrate, Nagaon, against physical possession. Also enclosed with this writ petition at page 128 is a copy of status report printout of a purported SARFAESI application, bearing SA No.91/2023 which was filed on 10.08.2023, and the same is shown to be pending before the jurisdictional Debt Recovery Tribunal. Copy of orders, if any, passed in the said application has not been produced before this Court. Under such circumstances, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Virupaksha and Anr. (supra), as the Debt Recovery Tribunal has the power and jurisdiction to decide on whether there was any failure on the part of the bank to take steps in accordance with law, the Court does not find this to be an appropriate case for issuing a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter.