RAVIDAS VITTHALDAS MANTRI PROPRIETOR Vs. AUTHORISED PERSON RUPEE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Shrikant G.Kulkarni, -
(1.) THE present appeal is under Section 17 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 against the action take by the respondent bank under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002. Apercu of facts leading to the present application is as under:
THE appellant was in financial need and therefore approached the respondent bank for financial assistance of Rs. 50 lacs on or about 11th April, 2001. THE respondent bank agreed to grant same and obtained signatures of the appellant on blank documents and by writing of unintended unwarranted information on those documents has committed fraud, cheating and deceived him and now claiming that it has granted the cash credit loan of Rs. 25 lacs on or about 10th May, 2001. Though the account limit expired on 30th June, 2001 the respondent bank instead of executing fresh documents extended the previous limit upto 30th September, 2002 by simply issuing letters and started ever-greening the account. THE requirement of the appellant was Rs. 50 lacs which was not met fully. THE respondent bank did not charge interest as per the circular issued by Reserve Bank of India and change of interest was not communicated to him. It was assured that the bank would charge interest at the rate of 14% per annum without any rest but the respondent bank compounded the interest. THE Reserve Bank of India has varied rates from time to time but the bank was charging interest at the rate of 18% per annum with quarterly rests. THE respondent bank had assured that the Term Loan would be granted for 7 years, however, the Term Loan was not granted and cash credit was granted for lesser period. THE appellant's request for reschedulement of the loan was not considered. THE account was not maintained properly. THE security documents are illegal. THE respondent bank is claiming recovery under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. THE appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 5 lacs with the respondent bank. THE appellant has filed an appeal in which the respondent bank has appeared and by taking possession it has committed contempt of Court. THE bank has taken symbolic possession. THE mortgage deed was executed for the loan which was not available. A person issuing notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 was not competent person. THEy, therefore, pray for quashing the action taken by the respondent bank in respect of property bearing CTS No. 565-C and 565-D along with construction on it situated at Daund, Distt. Pune.
(2.) The respondent bank appeared and filed written statement at exhibit No. 10 inter alia contending that the appeal is not maintainable. It denies to have assured the appellant to grant loan of Rs. 50 lacs and obtain signatures of the appellant on the blank documents by writing unintended and unwarranted information. It denies to have simply extended previous limit. It denies ever-greening of the account. It denies to have assured the appellant to communicate change of interest. It denies to have assured charging of interest at the rate of 14% per annum without any rest. It denies to have compounded the interest illegally. It denies that the appellant have asked for correct statement of accounts which was denied. It denies that statement of accounts is riot maintained properly. It denies that the appellant deposited Rs. 5 lacs towards principal amount. According to it, Mantri construction is Proprietorship firm of the appellant. It applied for cash credit facility of Rs. 20 lacs as working capital in 2001. After issuing the sanction letter the appellant and the guarantors executed various documents and agreed to pay interest with quarterly rest. The appellant is educated and was aware of the contents of the documents. Various notices were issued to the appellant and in reply no such contentions were taken. It denies to have obtained appellant's signatures on blank documents. The appellant never approached the respondent to supply copies of documents. The challenge made out by the appellant is after-thought. The statements of accounts are correct. The appellant is not entitled to any relief. The respondent has not taken actual possession and therefore, the claim is not maintainable. It, therefore, prays for dismissal of the application.
I have perused the written submissions filed by the parties and I have also heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.
(3.) THE action taken by the respondent is challenged on the following grounds:
i. Since the property is ancestral there are no title deeds and there was no mortgage by deposit of title deeds.
ii. Mortgage deed came to an end because of the execution of fresh documents.
iii. Application under Section 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is filed which is pending.
iv. THE person issuing notice had no authority.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.