Securitisation Application No. 34 of 2004. Case: Haresh Desai and Anr. Vs Citibank N.A.. Mumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberSecuritisation Application No. 34 of 2004
CounselFor Appellant: Deepak Thakkar, Adv., i/b., Ram Swaroop Gupta, Adv. and For Respondents: Rajesh Nagori, Adv., i/b., M.V. Kini and Co.
JudgesK.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
IssueSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 2, 8(2), 13(3)(A), 13(4) and 13(12); Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Rules 3, 8(1) and 8(7)
CitationIV (2006) BC 208
Judgement DateSeptember 01, 2006
CourtMumbai Debt Recovery Tribunals


K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer

  1. Being aggrieved by the respondent's taking physical possession of the Bungalow No. 1, Gokuldham Dwarkesh Park, Poisar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400067 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SRFAESI Act') the mortgagor (Borrower) as defined by Section 2(f) of SRFAESI Act has preferred this application.

  2. In the verbose 116 pages S. A. it is not possible to decipher what the applicant wants to say, let alone what the grounds arc. It seems that the applicant has averred all the facts including about those which were subject matter of the O.A. and have stood concluded. The learned Counsel for the applicant has at the time of arguments however raised following grounds which according to learned defence Counsel are covered by the S.A.:

    (i) The issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of SRFAESI Act is in contravention of the provisions of that Act;

    (ii) There is no compliance of Section 13(3-A) of the SRFAESI Act and Rule 8(7) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules;

    (iii) There is big difference in the amounts mentioned in notice under Section 13(2), the possession notice dated 4.6.2005, sale notice dated 7.6.2005. In any case, since the O.A. was allowed by this Tribunal for Rs. 19,33,108.48 with interest @ 9% p.a. by judgment dated 12.7.2005, the subsequent action under SRFAESI Act particularly with exaggerated amounts are not sustainable.

  3. By reply (Exh. 9) in the nature of affidavit of Mr. Pankaj S. Bhagal, respondent Bank has refuted the above grounds. It has contended that officer taking the steps under SRFAESI Act was authorised.

  4. I have heard arguments of learned Counsel representing the rival parties. I have gone through the documents as relevant for decision of the application.

  5. The first point challenging notice under Section 13(2) on the ground that it is issued through Advocate is squarely covered by my judgment given on 21.4.2006 as I/c. Presiding Officer, DRT, Aurangabad in S.A. No. 31 of 2005 between Santosh Traders v. Chairman, the Bhusawal People's Co-operative Bank Ltd.

    I have pointed out that the secured creditor can itself require the Bank by notice in writing to discharge in full his liability. I have also pointed out that the Section 13(2) of SRFAESI Act does not speak of authorised officer. I have further pointed out that at the stage of issuance of notice, no rights are...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT