IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Sunita Nishad – Appellant
Versus
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal through Registrar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to possession notice and auction sale. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding service of notices and encumbrances. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. court observations on compliance with notification requirements. (Para 7 , 9 , 11 , 13) |
| 4. counterarguments and implications of the bank's actions. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. discussion on the necessity of including the principal borrower. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. amendments regarding procedural compliance under agricultural laws. (Para 24 , 25 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. arguments against the validity of the extended mortgage. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. discussion on the bank's compliance with sarfaesi act. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 9. evidence of signatures and documentation supporting the bank's claims. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 41) |
| 10. court's remarks on the necessity of clean hands in litigation. (Para 44 , 45 , 50) |
| 11. final judgment and costs imposed on the petitioners. (Para 56 , 57) |
| 12. order for the petitioners to vacate the property. (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
JUDGMENT :
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Sunita Nishad and her husband Om Prakash, challenging the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by
Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V. Noble Kumar
State of Orissa and Others Vs. Laxmi Narayan Das
G. Narayana Swamy Reddy Vs. Govt. of Karnataka
M/s Ajeet Seeds Ltd Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah
B. Arvind Kumar Vs. Government of India and Others
Shakeena and Others Vs. Bank of India and Others
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. RCM Infrastructure Limited and Others
Mardia Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India
S. Karthik and Others Vs. N. Subhash Chand Jain and Others
Service of demand notice is valid if sent to the correct address, even with a name error; non-disclosure of encumbrances does not invalidate auction sale if it is with the same bank.
Point of Law - It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and le....
Mandatory compliance with procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act is essential; failure to adhere prejudices borrowers' rights and invalidates auction proceedings.
The court held that when a statute provides specific remedies, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised, affirming the precedence of statutory procedures over equitable remedies.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and the consequences of suppression of material facts.
The court established that the right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act is extinguished upon the issuance of a sale certificate, and timely challenge to bank actions is essential.
The SARFAESI Act mandates exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226; procedural compliance is essential, and the auction process cannot be set aside absent s....
Subsection 3 of Section 13 makes it clear that a notice under Subsection 2 shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower. If Ms.Lodha’s submission were to be accepted, then the word “shall....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.