SANTOSH TRADERS Vs. BHUSAWAL PEOPLES CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is Securitisation Application (S.A.) under Section-17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (for short the Act).
(2.) The respondent-Bank by notice, dated 13.6.2005, under Section 13(2) of the Act called upon the applicants to pay outstanding amount of about Rs. 28 lakhs. The applicants by letter, dated 25.7.2005, represented certain facts to the Bank by reply, dated 1.8.2005, the Bank dealt with the same. The applicants bad then challenged the respondents action by filing Writ Petition No. 5367/2005, which came to be disposed of by order, dated 27.10.2005, giving liberty to the applicants to raise all the contentions in properly constituted application. That is how this application has been filed. The applicants in the meanwhile lost possession on 24.10.2005.
The grounds of challenge to the action are that the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was given by the Advocate of the Bank and not by the Authorised Officer of the Bank. The other contention is that in the notice it was averred as if that finance of Rs. 25 lakhs was given afresh, even while the fact was that the finance was granted by way of renewal/enhancement of the facilities earlier enjoyed by the applicant No. 1. The further contention is that no security interest of movable property was created. Yet the Bank took possession thereof. Furthermore ground is that the reply to the representation made by the applicants under Section- 13-A of the Act shows total non-application of mind. There are no reasons given in the reply dealing with the contentions raised in the representation/objection. The last and probably the most important ground is that the Bank did not follow the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Since the action is said to be bad on the above grounds, it is sought to be set aside.
(3.) IN the reply/say (Exh, 10), the respondents have refuted all the above contentions. It is inter alia contended that the Bank has actually not taken possession of the movables. The Bank had asked the applicants to remove the movables from the immovable property. Since that was not done, it was constrained to take possession of the immovable property inside which movables i.e. household articles, etc, are lying.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.