16/10/2024

If a person mortgaged a property, belonging to others, as collateral security for advancement of loan, whether the original owner has only remedy to invoke the jurisdiction of the DRT or he has independent right to approach the Civil Court to get declaration? – Ankur Goyal HUF through its Karta Shri Ankur Goyal Vs. Corporation Bank and Anr. – Punjab and Haryana High Court

Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in the case in hand, plaintiff is claiming ownership of property on the basis of registered sale deeds in favour of plaintiff and after sale of the property, the vendor was left with no right, title or interest in the property. The vendor could not mortgage the property subsequently by way of collateral security in the year 2016 since the same was already sold in the year 2014. So, the question whether the suit property mortgaged is the result of collusion between the defendants or the result of fraud, can only be determined by the Civil Court after recording of the evidence and not by the DRT.

If a person mortgaged a property, belonging to others, as collateral security for advancement of loan, whether the original owner has only remedy to invoke the jurisdiction of the DRT or he has independent right to approach the Civil Court to get declaration? – Ankur Goyal HUF through its Karta Shri Ankur Goyal Vs. Corporation Bank and Anr. – Punjab and Haryana High Court Read Post »

Period to deposit the balance sale consideration under SARFAESI is not sacrosanct and is extendable | Rule 9(4) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 will not apply where there is no default on part of Auction Purchaser | Unilaterally cancellation of auction sale without any notice to Auction Purchaser is illegal – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramswaroop Daliya and Ors. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

(i) Rule 9(4) refers to a period of 15 days for deposit of balance sale consideration or such extended period for which no outer limit has been prescribed.
(ii) The period to deposit the balance sale consideration, as provided under the Rules, is not sacrosanct and is extendable with the consent in writing of the parties and that Rule 9(4) will only come into play when there is default on part of the party i.e. the auction purchaser to deposit the amount and will not apply where there is no default or that the default, if any, lies upon the auctioneer i.e. appellant-Bank in the case at hand.
(iii) Unilaterally cancellation of the auction sale without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the Auction Purchaser is per se in violation of the principles of natural justice and is illegal.

Period to deposit the balance sale consideration under SARFAESI is not sacrosanct and is extendable | Rule 9(4) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 will not apply where there is no default on part of Auction Purchaser | Unilaterally cancellation of auction sale without any notice to Auction Purchaser is illegal – IDBI Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramswaroop Daliya and Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top