Appeal Sr. No. 402 of 2012. Case: Dilip Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs Allahabad Bank and Ors.. Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Appeal Sr. No. 402 of 2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Vikram D. Chauhan, Advocate |
| Judges | R.K. Gupta, J (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4), 18 |
| Citation | I (2014) BC 77 (DRAT) |
| Judgement Date | July 18, 2013 |
| Court | Allahabad DRAT DRAT (Allahabad Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson)
-
They are heard. The present Appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the borrower, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on 31st October, 2012 in S.A. No. 181/2011. By this order the securitisation application preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. The relevant facts for adjudication of the present case are that the appellants were granted the housing loan by the respondent-Bank, but the same was not paid, therefore, the Bank proceeded to take action by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In spite of the notice, the loan was not paid, therefore, the Bank proceeded to take recourse under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The house in question which was the secured asset was put to auction and the reserve price was fixed for a sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs.
-
The appellant has filed the sale proclamation on record and according to the condition No. 2, the persons who are willing to participate in the auction, shall pay 10% of the reserve price in the name of the Authorized Officer of the respondent-Bank, as earnest money.
-
The respondent No. 3 intended to participate in the auction and deposited 10% of the reserve price which was a condition precedent in the sale proclamation to participate in the auction. The auction was conducted by inviting the tenders and according to the Bank, the tenders were opened on 8th June, 2011. After opening of the tenders, the highest bid of the respondent No. 3 which was for a sum of Rs. 8.21 lacs was accepted by the Bank. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 was intimated by the authorised officer vide its letter dated 18th June, 2011 that his highest bid has been accepted and the respondent No. 3 was directed to deposit 25% of the sale price.
-
According to the respondent-Bank, on 18th June, 2011 the respondent No. 3 deposited a sum of Rs. 1.22 lacs and 10% of earnest money i.e. Rs. 80,000/- was also included which was received by the Bank, which according to the Bank, was 25% of the sale price, and the balance amount of 75% which was for a sum of Rs. 6.19 lacs was deposited on 21st June, 2011.
-
It is the case of the appellant before the Tribunal that since the amount of 25% of the "sale price" was not deposited immediately on the date of sale as per the Rule 9(3) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, therefore, there was noncompliance of Rule 9(3) of the Rules, 2002.
-
The respondent-Bank before the Tribunal below submitted that since the auction purchaser has already deposited 10% of the reserve price before the date of auction and after when by letter dated 18th June, 2011 the intimation was given to the auction purchaser that his bid is accepted and the sale stands confirmed in his favour them the total amount of 25% is received by the Bank after adjusting the amount of Rs. 80,000/- with Rs. 1.22 lacs, which was deposited by the auction purchaser on 18th June, 2011. The full amount of 25% stands received and therefore, it is a case where there is no case for...
To continue reading
Request your trial