In a matter pertaining to SARFAESI Act, in 2013 there has been a supreme court judgement (Standard Chartered Bank v. V. Noble Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 620) which mentions that borrower can approach the DRT under section 17 only after physical possession of his property has been taken over by the bank, and not after symbolic possession under 13(4) as is the widespread accepted theory. In light of this, many DRT judges in Calcutta have dismissed the appeals of borrowers under section 17 after symbolic possession under 13(4).
I believe this is a very aggressive judgement. I would like to have the views of experts in this forum on the above and also what is the remedy for a borrower now in such a case so as to prevent bank from taking physical possession under section 14? Thanks.
