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

DELHI HIGH COURT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED
Rajan Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Bank of India – Respondent


JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. These three petitions raise common issues and were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The issue is with regard to the meaning of the word "borrower" as appearing in Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

2. According to the petitioners, the word "borrower" as appearing in the said Section 13 (2) and as defined in Section 2 (f) of the said Act cannot extend and does not extend to include legal representatives of the original borrower. According to them, the expression relates only to the persons who took the loan or who were guarantors for the loan. It does not extend to their heirs or successors or legal representatives.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the expression "borrower" not only includes the persons who originally took the loan or the persons who originally stood guarantee, but also their legal representatives and heirs.

4. The present controversy is in connection with financial assistance to the extent of Rs 650 lacs 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