Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.36 seconds)The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002
The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002
Alisha Khan vs Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) on 13 December, 2021
In support of his arguments, Mr. Dutta has placed
reliance upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Alisha
Khan v. Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank), reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 3340 and V. Sridhar v. The Authorized Officer
Indian Bank, Chennai, reported in AIR 2018 Mad 87.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
E Ali S/O Soopy, vs The Syndicate Bank, on 1 June, 2015
14. On the other hand, certain judgments relied on by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner are apposite to be
considered. This Court in the case of E.ALI v. THE SYNDICATE
BANK2 has held as follows:
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Rampur Distillery And Chemical Co., ... on 20 February, 1973
13. The above shows that loan account for realization
of which the sale was held was ultimately settled to the full
satisfaction of respondent No. 1 by receiving the payment
favouring the account of the borrower Sri. Jignesh N. Patel
by third party Dr. Ramanuja and closed the account. Since
payment has been accepted and loan account has been
closed, respondent No. 1 cannot now say that it has suffered
any loss or damages. If that is so, there is no justification on
the part of respondent No. 1 in retaining the amount
deposited by the petitioner in whose favour respondent No. 1
in any case was not in a position to pass full title on account
of the borrower/mortgagor transferring the property in
favour of Smt. Naina J. Patel. Respondent No. 1 has taken a
position in the writ petition that since the assets were taken
over by it under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, the gift
deed executed by Sri. Jignesh N. Patel in favour of Smt.
Naina J. Patel would not have any legal effect on the efficacy
of sale and transfer of title in favour of highest bidder
pursuant to sale notification dated 15.10.2010 (Annexure-A).
The validity of such contention need not be gone into for two
reasons namely, firstly, respondent No. 1 has settled the
loan account with its borrower by making OTS proposal and
accepting payment towards the account of the borrower Sri.
Jignesh N. Patel on the premise of full and final settlement
and once that is done the security given for the due payment
of the loan gets released rendering it no more available for
sale. Secondly, even if the contention of respondent No. 1 on
the legal effect of sale under the SARFAESI Act is correct, the
petitioner was justified in entertaining a doubt regarding the
outcome of such a sale on passing title to him and on the
said basis insisting upon respondent No. 2 to clear the title
and withholding the balance sale price and in such a situation
respondent No. 1 having settled the loan account with the
borrower cannot mulct the further part consideration amount
deposited by the petitioner. Since respondent No. 1 has not
suffered any loss or damage, it is not entitled to retain the
amount of Rs. 24,10,000/- deposited by the
petitioner UNION OF INDIA v. RAMPUR DISTILLERY AND
CHEMICAL CO. Ltd.
Mr. Mandava Krishna Chaitanya vs Uco Bank, Asset Management Branch on 21 February, 2018
4. Relying upon two judgments reported in Mandava
Krishna Chaitanya v. UCO Bank, Asset Management
Branch1 and Adhya Industries v. Vijaya Bank2, learned senior
counsel argues that the writ must be decided in his favour as
the Rule is now caveat venditor and not caveat emptor.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ram Kishun vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 June, 2017
In a decision reported in Ram Kishun v. State of
5
U.P. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 13 clearly held that
while auctioning such property in such circumstances, the
financial institution should not behave like property dealers;
should act in a fair manner and in strict conformity with the
statutory provision. Undoubtedly, public money should be
recovered and recovery should be made expeditiously. But it
does not mean that the financial institutions which are
concerned only with the recovery of their loans, may be
permitted to behave as they please and be permitted further
to dispose of the secured assets in any unreasonable or
arbitrary manner or in flagrant violation of the statutory
provisions. In this case, in conclusion, it is held that the
petitioner is entitled to relief for the reasons mentioned in
paras 6 to 9 and in paras 16-17.