SARFAESI Act, 2002= the secured debtor, who is borrower, is entitled to liquidate the debt at any time by any means before sale by public auction is continued and sale certificate after registration is issued by transferring the secured property (asset) in recognition of the right of the borrower to liquidate before such transfer of the security asset. Once the petitioner, who claims entered private negotiations with a third party and wants to pay the entire amount due to the bank, the bank is bound to accept, as the very securitization measures are for realization of the debt due to it, needless to say even any other financial assistance rendered by the bank with any right of lien it got that also can be recovered and but for that, the moment the debt is liquidated the bank has to return the title deeds in deposit to the borrower so as to finalize the sale transaction he enters with a third party.

WP 13908 / 2016
WPSR 72874 / 2016CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SYED GHOUSE JEELANI BASHA  VSA.O., SBH, KADAPA DIST. & ANO.



SUBJECT: Securitization Act CasesDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD

[1] HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO AND HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
Writ Petition No.13908 of 2016
ORDER: (per Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao)
The petitioner is the borrower as defined under Section 2(f) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) and the 1 st respondent is the secured creditor, as defined under Section 2(zd) of the Act. The petitioner availed the financial assistance from the bank and committed default in payment and the bank classified the account as non-performing asset, as per Section 2(o) of the Act and initiated securitization measures to recover secured debt against the secured asset/security interest. Undoubtedly from the wording of Section 13(1) read with Section 13(8) of the Act, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 69 or 69-A are applicable. This is to say also from the expression of the apex court in ‘Mathulal vs. Keshar Bai’, the secured debtor, who is borrower, is entitled to liquidate the debt at any time by any means before sale by public auction is continued and sale certificate after registration is issued by transferring the secured property (asset) in recognition of the right of the borrower to liquidate before such transfer of the security asset. Once the petitioner, who claims entered private negotiations with a third party and wants to pay the entire amount due to the bank, the bank is bound to accept, as the very securitization measures are for realization of the debt due to it, needless to say even any other financial assistance rendered by the bank with any right of lien it got that also can be recovered and but for that, the moment the debt is liquidated the bank has to return the title deeds in deposit to the borrower so as to finalize the sale transaction he enters with a third party.
2. Having regard to the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner and 1 st respondent as follows:
The moment the petitioner pays the secured debt due to the bank covered by the security interest, and even any other debt due to it from the borrower that also can recover and when paid, the bank shall return the title deeds of the borrower in deposit with the bank by obtaining proper acknowledgment from the borrower and also by issuing no due certificate to the borrower. There is no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition, shall closed. ______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J _________________________ DR. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date: 22.04.2016 Note: Furnish CC by 25.04.2016 (BO) BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO AND HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO URGENT 71 Writ Petition No.13908 of 2016 (per Hon’ble Dr.Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao) Date: 22.04.2016 BSS [1] AIR 1971 SC 310

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.