Back
ORDER :
1. The petitioner-M/S Jai Durge Automobile, through the medium of the present petition, seeks quashment of a Communication No. NT/MU/24-25/136-40 dated 09.12.2024 addressed by the respondent No. 3-Naib Tehsildar, Executive Magistrate Muthi Jammu, whereby the respondent No. 1-Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd has been directed to take into possession the residential house constructed over land measuring 9 marlas falling under khasra No. 712/413 min situated at Lane No. 7, Netar Kothey, Lower Barnai, Jammu, in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and a further direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under OTS Scheme and grant a considerable time to clear the dues.
2. Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had raised loan from the respondent- Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd, however, due to certain personal difficulties, the loan could not be repaid and the petitioner intends to liquidate the amount provided he is given some time to liquidate the same by way of installments keeping in view the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner.
3. He has further argued that the respondents have taken an action whereby the
Petitioners must challenge foundational orders under the SARFAESI Act before ancillary communications can be contested; however, courts can facilitate settlements to ensure fair resolution of financi....
The SARFAESI Act provides specific remedies for grievances, and borrowers do not have a vested right to One Time Settlement benefits, which are subject to the bank's discretion.
The judgment centers on the enforcement of loan agreements and the application of the SARFAESI Act in case of defaults, emphasizing the validity of One-Time Settlement proposals.
The court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of applications for possession of mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act, especially in cases involving prolonged delays and substantial....
The duty of a litigant to disclose all material facts and the bank's right to protect its recovery were the central legal points established in the judgment.
The court allows the petitioner to propose an One-Time Settlement and stays coercive actions pending consideration.
The remedy for seeking details of the loan account was available to the petitioner by making a proper application before the DRT itself.
The judgment establishes that borrowers can negotiate repayment options even during active recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.
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
