Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)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.
Section 69A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Bhupinder Singh vs The State Bank Of Patiala on 25 March, 2008
The judgment of this Court in Bhupinder Singh's case
(supra) is of no help to the petitioners as in that judgment a housing loan
in the sum of Rs.4,80,000/- was availed by a mason. In the said
judgment, the house was put to auction for the amount of Rs.4,75,000/-
by allegedly conducting a fake auction. The Court summoned the record
and noticed that it was not clear when the account of the petitioner was
classified as NPA. The account was declared NPA without notice to the
borrower nor was any notice served upon the borrower. The Court
noticed that the Bank has not produced the original accounts of the
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) (10)
petitioners in which the same was classified as NPA. The photocopies of
the documents produced reflected list of hundreds of accounts prepared
by Chartered Accountant of the Bank. In these circumstances, the Court
gave a finding that Bank has classified the account of the petitioner as
NPA without any specific order to that effect without application of
mind.
Mr K R Krishnegowda vs The Chief Manager/Authorised Officer on 27 March, 2012
Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to a
Division Bench judgment of Karnataka High Court reported as K.R.
Krishnegowda and Another v. The Chief Manager/Authorised Officer,
Kotak Mahindra Bank, AIR 2012 Karnataka 116, to contend that action
of the Bank in taking possession without delivery of notice is void.
However, a perusal of the judgment shows that after objections were filed
by the borrower, but the Bank without complying with the procedure
prescribed under Section 13(4) of the Act, took steps under Section 14 of
the Act for the purpose of taking possession. The Court has rightly said
that the issuance of notice to the borrower as well as publication in the
newspapers is expressly provided and hence would have to be complied
with by the secured creditor.
1