Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
Section 17 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 13 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
United Bank Of India vs Satyawati Tondon & Ors on 26 July, 2010
11. Learned counsel for the Bank also cites United Bank of India Vs.
Satyavati Tondon and others, reported at (2020) 8 SCC 110. It was
observed there that if a person had any tangible grievance against the
notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14,
she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section
17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The expression "any person" used in
Section 17(1) is of wide import and takes within its fold not only the
borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be
affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both
the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, it was held, are empowered
to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to
decide the matters within a fixed time-schedule. It is, thus, evident
that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the
SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.
Section 18 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
United Bank Of India & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 September, 2017
23. The action by which the petitioner is aggrieved is that her property
was taken by the Bank not pursuant to the order passed under
Section 14, which pertained to the secured asset and not the
petitioner‟s property, but beyond the same. Thus, the petitioner does
8
not have locus standi to challenge the order passed under Section 14
of the SARFAESI Act and the proposition laid down in United Bank of
India (supra) is rendered academic for the present purpose.
Debasree Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 December, 2010
In the cited judgment of Debashree Das (supra), the Division Bench
was dealing with a case where there was no lawful mortgage in respect
of the property-in-question. The identity of the property regarding
which the Bank had initiated proceedings under Section 13(4) of the
SARFAESI Act was not in dispute as in the present case. In such
circumstances, the Division Bench held that in the facts of the said
case, where a citizen of India was harassed in the way as in the said
case and was dispossessed from his lawful property at the instance of
a financial institution who had acquired no interest over the property
so as to enable it to exercise power under Section 13(4) of the Act,
such a citizen is not required to go to the alternative remedy provided
under Section 17 of the Act.
1