Back
SIDDHARTHA VARMA
Authorized Officer, Sbi – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The respondent no.1-Rakesh Singh along with his father Bal Govind Singh and mother Kanti Devi took a housing loan from the petitioner-Bank. The mother Smt. Kanti Devi pledged the title deeds of her property as a collateral security. When the borrowers failed to pay the loan in terms of the repayment schedule, the Bank issued a demand notice on 6.10.2008 under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act") and demanded a sum of Rs.16,34,145.77. Thereafter a notice for possession was issued under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 14.6.2018 and symbolic possession of the property was taken. The mother Smt. Kanti Devi along with the respondent-Rakesh Singh and Sunita Singh, the wife of Rakesh Singh, filed a writ petition for the quashing of the recovery notice dated 15.6.2018. Along with this prayer, it was also prayed that the Bank may not take actual physical possession of the property. This writ petition was numbered as Writ-C No.23133 of 2018. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 10.7.2018 as being premature. Thereafter the mother of the
Proceeding conducted against a dead person is bad in law.
The proceedings initiated against the original borrower for enforcement of security interest stand concluded by virtue of intimation served upon them, and the death of the original borrower occurring....
Order of the Tribunal it is not discernible as to whether any application for condonation of delay was filed or how the Tribunal dealt with the belated approach of the borrowers.
Compliance with statutory notice requirements is imperative in mortgage auctions; failures may invalidate the sale, preserving the mortgagor's right of redemption until formal sale registration.
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act is essential; failure to adhere prejudices borrowers' rights and invalidates auction proceedings.
The court upheld the bank's actions under the Act, confirming that due process was followed in the recovery of the loan, dismissing the petition for lack of diligent prosecution by the applicant.
The High Court cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the need for exhaustion of statutory remedies.
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
