Back
GOPINATH P.
P. N. Balasubramani, S/o. Nallu Thevar – Appellant
Versus
Uco Bank, Rep. By Authorised Officer/Manager – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the Recovery Officer attached to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam bringing certain properties which are now in the ownership of the petitioners (by virtue of Exts.P1 to P4 sale deeds) to sale, for recovery of amounts due from respondents 3 to 10. It is the case of the petitioners that the steps taken to bring the properties to sale without considering the request made by the petitioners for one-time settlement are bad in law.
2. The facts which are to be noted for the adjudication of this case may be briefly noticed. The petitioners purchased 29.35 acres of land from M/s. Eden Cardamom Estate, a partnership firm of which respondents 3 to 10 were partners. On 28.06.2011, the date on which Exts.P1 to P4 sale deeds were executed, the petitioners also entered into an agreement undertaking to repay the liability of Rs.2,14,86,060/-due from M/s. Eden Cardamom Estate and its partners, to the UCO Bank along with future interest and costs etc. It is not in dispute before this Court that though the petitioners made some payments to clear the liabilities to the UCO Bank, they did not pay the
Point of law: Proceedings initiated by Recovery Officer to bring properties in question to sale are in consonance with provisions of Second Schedule to Income Tax Act, 1961.
A claimant cannot assert a One Time Settlement as a matter of right when a recovery certificate has already been issued.
Repeated non-compliance with court-ordered payments disentitles borrowers to further equitable relief in writ jurisdiction.
The court established that adherence to statutory processes for property sale was observed, and petitioners failed to pursue available legal remedies, justifying dismissal.
A mortgage is indivisible, but a mortgagee may choose not to include certain purchasers in proceedings, affirming dominus litis principle.
Borrowers cannot demand specific benefits under One Time Settlement schemes if they fail to properly engage in the process; such benefits are discretionary and not a right.
The court affirmed the validity of a mortgage auction, emphasizing banks' rights over secured properties despite challenges from subsequent purchasers and procedural compliance in auction processes.
The petitioner had no standing to challenge the bank's actions under the SARFAESI Act, except in relation to the property obtained under the settlement deed.
The petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the proceedings initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act against the properties mortgaged to the bank and in respect of action initiated against th....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
