Central Bank Of India vs Ravindra And Ors on 18 October, 2001
The challenge to the action of the Bank before the Tribunal, inter
alia, was that the account of the petitioners is not a Non Performing Asset
and that the possession notice has not been served upon the petitioners in
terms of Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002
(for short 'the Rules'). The learned Tribunal, inter alia, returned a
finding that since the current market value of security charged being
sufficient to ensure recovery of the dues of Bank in full, the assets could
not have been declared as sub-standard (in other words Non Performing
Asset) in terms of the Master Circulars issued by RBI. Reliance was
placed upon the reserve price fixed for these assets in the sale notice
DALBIR SINGH
2014.08.14 17:07
I attest to the accuracy of this
document
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No.15673 of 2014 (O&M) (4)
dated 14.09.2012 as Rs.18.62 crores as against outstanding dues of
Rs.15.93 crores. The Tribunal also found that penal interest has been
charged in contravention of the judgment reported as Central Bank of
India v. Ravindra and others, AIR 2001 SC 3095, and that the possession
notice has not been delivered to the petitioners in terms of mandate of
Rule 8 (1) of the Rules. It was also found that though the process of
affixation of possession notice has been placed on record but there is
nothing on record that the possession notice was delivered to the
petitioners. It was further found that the affixation of possession notice
and the personal delivery of possession notice both are mandatory.