SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.
Ashok Kumar —Petitioner
Versus
Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank
and Ors. —Respondents
Writ C No.14755 of 2013 and Writ C No.66988 of 2012
Decided on 10.2.2017

Counsel for the Parties:
Writ C No.14755 of 2013
For the Petitioner:M.M. Sahai and R. Sahai, Advocates
For the Respondent:C.S.C., B.N. Rai, Nishant Mehrotra and Sanjay Singh, Advocates
Writ C No.66988 of 2012
For the Petitioner:M.M. Sahai and R. Sahai, Advocates
For the Respondent:C.S.C., Nishant Mehrotra and Sanjay, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Financial institutions cannot be permitted to behave like property dealers and be permitted further to dispose of secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Section 13(4)—Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002—Rules 4, 6 and 9—Recovery of debt—Housing loan—Default in payment of instalments—Once admittedly amount in question had been with bank, then account could not be declared as non-performing asset—Even at the time of declaration of NPA, amount of subsistence allowance was due to be paid by bank which was not credited in account of petitioner—As a matter of fact, notice was not served on petitioner—Public money should be recovered and recovery should be made expeditiously but it does not mean that financial institutions which are concerned only with recovery of their loans, may be permitted to behave like property dealers and be permitted further to dispose of secured assets in any unreasonable or arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of statutory provisions—There must be application of mind by authority concerned while approving/accepting report of approved Valuer and fixing reserve price as failure to do so may cause substantial injury to borrower/guarantor and that would amount to material irregularity and ultimately vitiate subsequent proceedings. (Paras 17, 18 and 24)

       (B) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Section 13(8)—Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002—Rule 8—Auction sale of secured asset—Any sale or transfer of a secured asset cannot take place without duly informing borrower of time and date of such sale or transfer in order to enable borrower to tender dues of secured creditor with all costs, charges and expenses and any such sale or transfer effected without complying with said statutory requirement would be a constitutional violation and nullify ultimate sale— Proceedings subsequent to notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 being in flagrant violation of statutory provisions are liable to be quashed. (Paras 29 and 42)

       Result: Writ Petitions allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri M.M Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Punjab National Bank and Shri Sanjay Rai, holding brief of Shri B.N. Rai for Smt. Janki Devi-auction purchaser.

2. In Writ C No.14755 of 2013, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.3.2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Recall Sr. No.390/12 in Appeal No.R-146/12. In the connected Writ C No.66988 of 2012 the petitioner is assailing the order ex-parte judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 passed in Appeal No.R-146/2012 (Ashok Kumar vs. Punjab National Bank & ors) and for quashing the proceedings of Case No.274 of 2012 (Punjab National Bank vs. Ashok Kumar) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. Brief background of the case, as reflected from the record, is that the petitioner was serving in Punjab National Bank, Branch Mahmoorganj, Varanasi. During his service period, he availed a housing loan of Rs. 10 lacs in the year 2007 for construction of house and deposited title deed of Arazi No.205/2, Village Phulwari, Pargana Dehat Amanat, District Varanasi as security. The petitioner committed defaults in payment of instalments. Consequently, the account was declared as ‘Non-Performing Asset’. The respondent-bank issued a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) on 3.9.2010 for Rs.9,00,458/- and thereafter possession notice dated 4.2.2011. The notice inviting tender for sale of security was published in the newspaper on 19.11.2011 fixing 18.12.2011. The property in question was sold to fourth respondent i.e. Smt. Janki Devi for Rs.8,10,351/- and the sale certificate was issued on 28.12.2011. The sale deed was executed in favour of the fourth respondent on 6.1.2012 and the same was registered in the office of Sub Registrar-II, Varanasi on 16.3.2012. The fourth respondent came over the property in question on 10.3.2012 for taking possession.

4. The petitioner had proceeded to move an application under Section 17 (1) of SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad alleging that neither the petitioner was served with the notice dated 3.11.2011 under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act nor possession notice dated 4.2.2011. The minimum value of the property in question as per circle rate comes to Rs.22,65,754/- but the property in question was grossly undervalued. The petitioner had no knowledge of the recovery proceedings prior to 10.3.2012. The Tribunal did not find any defect in the sale proceedings undertaken by the respondent bank as the petitioner slept over and forfeited his right to redemption and dismissed the application in question on 3.8.2012, holding that the petitioner’s right to redeem security has lapsed with lapse of time. The Tribunal had observed that in the instant case the sale certificate was issued on 18.12.2011 and the sale deed executed was registered on 6.1.2012. The confirmation of sale was much prior to these dates. There is no whisper in the application that the petitioner tendered the debt or at least made any attempt for the same. The application was filed on 23.3.2012 and for the first time the submission was made that the petitioner was ready to pay his dues.

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner had proceeded to file a Writ C No.40941 of 2012 (Ashok Kumar vs. Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank and ors) and a Division Bench of this Court had disposed of the writ petition on 27.8.2012, giving liberty to the petitioner to seek his appropriate relief under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act or before the District Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Appeal No.146 of 2012 on 3.9.2012 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and deposited a sum of Rs.5 lakhs vide DD No.151327 issued by Allahabad Bank on 17.9.2012 as required under proviso t












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top