Appeal No. 62 of 2015. Case: Sonu Grover and Ors. Vs Allahabad Bank and Ors.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)
| Case Number | Appeal No. 62 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Amit Dhall, Advocate and For Respondents/Defendant: Noel Cherobin, Advocate |
| Judges | Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) |
| Issue | Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(4) |
| Citation | IV (2015) BC 206 (DRAT) |
| Judgement Date | July 21, 2015 |
| Court | Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals) |
Judgment:
Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
-
The appellants had filed an S.A. before the Tribunal below seeking direction to restrain the respondent Bank from taking further steps under the SARFAESI Act. The S.A. filed by the appellants stands dismissed by the Tribunal below, holding that no suitable ground is raised by the appellants in the said S.A. Aggrieved against this order, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The appellant No. 1 is the owner of the property bearing No. 13/2, Shop No. 1-7, Basement, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Appellant No. 2 is her husband. M/s. Kailash Trading Company (respondent No. 3), which is proprietorship concern of one Mr. Ashok Kumar had availed credit facilities to the tune of Rs. 55 lac from the respondent Bank. To secure the said facilities, respondent No. 3 had hypothecated stocks, book debts and other, movable assets in terms of memorandum of arrangement letter dated 23.7.2010. The appellants stood as guarantor-cum-mortgagor to the aforesaid facilities. The appellants would contend that the arrangement was for sanction of credit facility of Rs. 55 lac and, therefore, the respondent Bank has no right to give any financial arrangement or other type of facilities or benefit to respondent No. 3 beyond these facilities agreed upon as per letter of arrangement dated 23.7.2010. As per the appellants, if any financial arrangement has been permitted beyond this, it was without knowledge and his consent.
-
The appellants came up with the plea before the Tribunal below that they would have no objection if the Bank proceeded to recover of its due by the sale of the assets/properties of respondent No. 3 who was the principal borrower. As per the appellants, these securities were sufficient to satisfy the claim of the Bank. The appellants accordingly challenged the action of the Bank in initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act which were termed as wholly illegal and unenforceable in law.
-
The appellants also alleged that no notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was served upon them. They had also challenged the action of the Bank in classifying the account as NPA which, as per them, was done without adhering to any of the norms and circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Appellants also made a grievance against the rate of interest charged and thus the action of the Bank to proceed against the property of the appellants was termed to be wholly illegal and untenable which was liable to be set...
To continue reading
Request your trial