S.A. No. 3 of 2005. Case: S.G.B. Corrubox Industries Vs Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Anr.. Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberS.A. No. 3 of 2005
CounselFor Appellant: M. Anilkumar, Adv. and For Respondents: Anand Joshi, Adv.
JudgesK.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
IssueSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2) and 17
CitationII (2005) BC 227
Judgement DateApril 06, 2005
CourtNagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals


K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer

  1. This application under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SRFAESI Act) relates to 2 properties as below:

    (i) Plot and building owned by Ku. Pushpa Narayanrao Jadhav, at Circle No. 3, Ward No. 19 (old ward No. 9), Tulsibagh Road, in Murlidhar Mandir Premises, Plot No. 6, Corporation House No. 288/0, 1(H), Nagpur.

    (ii) Property of M/s. S.G.B. Corrubox Industries through its partners bearing Plot No. A-15/20, situated at Sukhali, Rural Area Taluka and Sub Dist. Hingna, Dist: Nagpur and having an area of 1500.00 sq. ft. with building and structure standing thereon.

  2. Certain facts which are admitted are that the respondent Bank had given notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 21.8.2003 calling upon the applicant to deposit Rs. 20,99.270/- being outstanding under C.C. limit with interest and Rs. 21,86.170/- being outstanding under term loans with interest.

  3. The appellant represented the Bank and requested for rehabilitation package. The respondent Bank called upon the applicant for discussion but ultimately the Bank neither rejected nor accepted the rehabilitation package. The Bank also did not reconsider the representation much less reply the same. These are the two grounds under which taking of symbolic possession by the Bank of the property on 5.11.2003 is assailed. The challenge is made after the Bank gave notice dated 21.12.2004 of taking physical possession whereafter this application is filed.

  4. The respondent has controverted the above contentions by inter alia submitting that the applicant did not submit the proposal of reschedulement in the prescribed format and did not deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh which is required to be deposited along with the proposal in the prescribed format. It is denied that the respondent did not consider the reasons given by the applicant.

  5. I have heard arguments of learned Counsel representing the rival parties. I have also gone through the copies of the documents to which my attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel.

  6. There are two grounds in the application. The first amongst them is that the Bank did not consider the representation given by way of reply to notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act much less given reply. In this connection, however, the learned Counsel for the applicant Bank admits that pursuant to the representation the Bank had called upon the...

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