DRAT

A Tenant relying on an un-registered rent agreement cannot challenged an order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 | There is no mandatory requirement to hear the Borrower or Guarantor at the time of passing of order u/s 14 – Shampa Basak Vs. Poonawalla Fincorp Ltd. – DRAT Kolkata

Hon’ble DRAT Kolkata held that if any of the tenants claim that he is entitled to possession of a secured for a term of more than a year, it has to be supported by the execution of a registered instrument. It was further held that in the absence of a registered instrument if the tenant relies on an unregistered instrument or an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the tenant is not entitled to possession of the secured asset for more than the period prescribed u/s 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. There is no mandatory requirement to hear the borrower or guarantor at the time of passing of order u/s 14 of the Act.

A Tenant relying on an un-registered rent agreement cannot challenged an order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 | There is no mandatory requirement to hear the Borrower or Guarantor at the time of passing of order u/s 14 – Shampa Basak Vs. Poonawalla Fincorp Ltd. – DRAT Kolkata Read Post »

Order passed by District Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 cannot be challenged on the ground that a civil suit for partition of Secured Asset between family is pending before Civil Court – Smt. Navneets Agarwal Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. – DRAT Kolkata

Hon’ble DRAT Kolkata held that the father of the Appellant purchased the property, which is the secured asset. Father of the Appellant, obtained loan from the Bank wherein mortgage was created by deposit of title deeds. As far as share of the Appellant is concerned, it is yet to be decided by the Civil Court. Further as far as measures under Section 14 of the Act are concerned, they have to be looked into independently. Since the secured assets were mortgaged by the owner of the property with the Bank, Bank was within its right to proceed under the SARFAESI Act. The District Magistrate has passed the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act in accordance with law.

Order passed by District Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 cannot be challenged on the ground that a civil suit for partition of Secured Asset between family is pending before Civil Court – Smt. Navneets Agarwal Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. – DRAT Kolkata Read Post »

A scope of review under CPC is much larger than the scope of review under DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 – State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Shri Bihariji Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – DRAT Kolkata

Hon’ble DRAT Kolkata held that:

(i) A bare perusal of Rule 5A of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 demonstrates that a review is only maintainable on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. These are the only two grounds wherein a review application can be filed under the Rules, 1993.
(ii) Mistake relates to a mistake which is typographical or arithmetical. In no case, any mistake touching the merits of the case can be taken into consideration at the time of reviewing an earlier order passed by the DRT.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident or has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) If a plea which could have been taken by the petitioner but has not been taken or raised, then he is estopped from challenging or raising the same in subsequent proceedings.

A scope of review under CPC is much larger than the scope of review under DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 – State Bank of India and Anr. Vs. Shri Bihariji Cold Rollers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – DRAT Kolkata Read Post »

Change in the terms of settlement between Borrower and Bank is beyond the jurisdiction of the DRT – State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Smt. Sanjukta Debta – DRAT Kolkata

Hon’ble DRAT Kolkata held that DRT is re-writing the terms of settlement by directing to pay amounts on different intervals with a direction to the secured creditor to accept the same. Such type of terms could not be issued by the DRT. The terms of settlement could not be drawn by the Courts. It is the prerogative of the secured creditor to settle the account as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Change in the terms of settlement between Borrower and Bank is beyond the jurisdiction of the DRT – State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Smt. Sanjukta Debta – DRAT Kolkata Read Post »

Scroll to Top