S.A. No. 4 of 2005. Case: Smt. Smita and Ors. Vs Bank of Maharashtra. Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals
|Case Number:||S.A. No. 4 of 2005|
|Party Name:||Smt. Smita and Ors. Vs Bank of Maharashtra|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: A.K. Soinani, Adv. and For Respondents: M.N. Phadke, Adv.|
|Judges:||K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer|
|Issue:||Securilisalion and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4) and 17|
|Citation:||III (2005) BC 241|
|Judgement Date:||July 08, 2005|
|Court:||Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals|
K.J. Paratwar, Presiding Officer
This appeal (application) under Section 17 of the Securilisalion and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SRFAESI Act), relates to Plot No. 15, Nazul Sheet No. 39/D standing in the name of deceased Dilip Sampatlal Bore whose heirs have been aggrieved by the respondent's taking of possession (on 10.11.2004) under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SRFAESI Act).
By notice under Section 13(2) of SRFAESI Act, respondent called upon the applicants to pay Rs. 2,61,639/- with interest thereupon within two months failing which subsequent action under SRFAESI Act was threatened to be taken.
The applicants gave reply/representation dated 11.3.2004 to the statutory notice and had pleaded ignorance about the transactions between the deceased and the Bank. The contention that the amount may be recovered from the borrower was also taken out. The Bank did not consider the representation and straightaway went out to take the possession as noted above, which has aggrieved the appellants.
The respondent in the reply at Ex. 9 has resisted the application on the ground that the applicants are aware of the filing of the suit. It is contended that the necessary of considering the representation or objection submitted by the borrowers arose by amendment introducing Section 13(3A) which came into force on 11.11.2004 i.e. after the date of taking possession. It is stated that such reply was not given since not required before Apex Court's judgment Mardia Chemical's case. On the aforesaid grounds, the S.A. is sought to be dismissed.
The learned Counsel for the parties have argued the matter at the length and have invited my attention to the relevant documents as are necessary for decision of the application.
Having regard to the facts, circumstances and material on record and the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the application can be disposed of only on one point. That point is that the applicant Bank has admittedly not considered the representation submitted by the borrower;, (applicants) dated 11.3.2004 before taking the possession under Section 13(4) of...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL