Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Section 36 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 62 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bub vs Sita Saran Bubna & Ors on 21 August, 2009
9. It is the contention of the appellant that prior to the coming
into force of the SARFAESI Act, the machinery for enforcing the
remedy existed under Order XXXIV Rule 4 to 6 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. The procedure was to file a suit for sale
of the mortgage property. The said procedure is such that the
mortgagee does not need to file a prior suit for recovery of
money. "A preliminary decree in a mortgage suit decides all
the issues and what is left out is only the action to be taken in
the event of non-payment (see Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub
Karan Prasad Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and Ors., (2009)
9 SCC 689). These issues include the question as to how much
is due and payable to the mortgagee, which is the question at
issue in a suit for recovery of money as well. Thus, whereas
the respondent bank chose to file a suit for recovery of money
against the appellant among others, it could have chosen
instead to proceed under Order XXXIV. However, it failed to do
so. The learned counsel submitted that on the contrary, the
respondent bank in par 17 of its plaint in the Suit has averred: