Case: Ranadhir Chokroborty Vs UCO Bank and Anr.. Guwahati Debt Recovery Tribunals

JudgesS.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer
IssueCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Section 60(1); Constitution Of India - Articles 19(1)(f), 300A; Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(1), 13(2), 13(4), 17, 31(g)
CitationI (2007) BC 97
Judgement DateNovember 08, 2006
CourtGuwahati Debt Recovery Tribunals


S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer

  1. This is an appeal filed under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SRFAESI Act'), against the action taken by UCO Bank under Section 13(4) of the 'SRFAESI Act'.

  2. The precise contention of the appellant is that while initiating action under Section 13(4) of 'SRFAESI Act', respondent UCO Bank has not strictly followed the provisions of the Act and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is his case that while the appellant was under medical treatment at Kolkata, by breaking the lock and key, his house and house-hold articles have been taken in possession by respondent Bank. Appellant strenuously contended that under Proviso (a) of Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the necessary wearing apparel, cooking vessels, clothes, beddings, etc. shall not be liable for attachment and sale.

  3. In this regard the previous order dated 23.8.2006 of this Tribunal is relevant which is reproduced below:

    ...It was seen that respondent secured creditor has taken possession of the house-hold properties/items including possession of mortgaged house under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. From the perusal of the case records and documents filed by the Bank, it could not be found out that the inventory house-hold items had been secured in favour of the Bank. The applicant Bank is directed to show cause under what provision the house-hold items have been taken in possession....

  4. The respondent Bank has admitted that the house-hold items are not secured or charged to them. It is their case that the Account was declared as NPA on 30.6.2004. Respondent Bank had issued notice under Section 13(2) on 9.6.2005 asking the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 26,72,371 with interest and cost. Since the dues were not paid within 60 days, the flat in question along with house-hold goods was taken over possession under Section 13(4) of 'SRFAESI Act' on 22.2.2006. It has been stated that Bank had issued a letter on 5.9.2006 to the appellant to take back house-hold goods as per inventory prepared during attachment.

  5. The Panchnama filed by respondent Bank dated 22.2.2006 reveals that for non-payment of the dues, possession of the movable properties as detailed in the inventory, was taken over. Secondly the Panchanama...

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