Back
ALOK ARADHE, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
P. Ramachandra Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Alok Aradhe, CJ.
Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Bank.
2. In Writ Petition No.38351 of 2014, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) has been dismissed. Commercial Court Appeal No.8 of 2018 is directed against the Judgment dated 6.02.2018 passed in C.O.S.No.50 of 2017. On account of commonality of the issues, the writ petition as well as the Commercial Court Appeal were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. Relevant facts giving rise to the controversy involved in both the cases are that the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the owners’) are the owners of four-storied building bearing Municipal Nos.3-4-683, 3-4-684 and New Shop adjacent to it and house No.3-4-685/1, admeasuring 297 square yards along with built up area of 13300 square feet, situated in
A sale deed remains valid despite non-payment of the entire sale consideration if the intention to transfer ownership is evident.
Sales executed after taking possession under the SARFAESI Act are void, affirming the authority of civil courts in possession disputes involving third parties.
Court held that transactions made during the subsistence of a mortgage are void under the SARFAESI Act; the auction purchaser's rights were upheld despite challenges to the validity of earlier transf....
The validity of a Sale Deed is not affected by non-receipt of the entire sale consideration, and the plaintiff's claim of fraud and coercion in obtaining the Sale Deed required specific details and p....
SARFAESI Section 17 application not maintainable when title dispute over secured asset pending with stay on cancellation decree.
Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the availability of an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal rendered the writ petition not mainta....
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 Debt Recovery Tribunal has the jurisdiction to incidentally examine property title to determine the existence of a valid security interest before upholding enforcement measures under the SARFAESI....
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.
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
