Can we move consumer court once property surrendered to bank
somesh
(Querist) 16 June 2018
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
I have given possession of my property to the bank recently and asked them to close the matter as my properties value (valuation report is with me) is 25% more than the amount i owe to them. But the bank is selling my properties below 50% of the actual market price of the area. the property is kept for auction now.
I want to know whether i can move to consumer court against bank for falsely valuing my property and selling it at distress price.
Any other suggestion to get justice.
Guest
(Expert) 16 June 2018
Instead of surrendering your property to the bank you should have taken efforts to sell the property your self or at least you should have obtained No due certificate from them.
Guest
(Expert) 16 June 2018
It normally happens in the cases of defaulters in Properties Loan and Vehicle Loan.also. Bankers and Financiers would have an understanding with the buyers and would auction it for a lesser price than loan out standing and would further torture the defaulter clients. for further payments..
Guest
(Expert) 16 June 2018
Now it is too late and the Consumer Forums will not be involved in this
Guest
(Expert) 16 June 2018
Discuss with a local advocate and seek the possibilities of obtaining a Stay for the auction process.
Guest
(Expert) 16 June 2018
Discuss with local advocate in detail
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 June 2018
Your and your counsels strategy is known to you.
Your own LOCAL senior counsels of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in such/civil matters and well versed with latest citations, LOCAL applicable rules/laws/ … and having successful track record…. and worth his/her salt…..and that has seen the case related docs etc etc must have advised you in detail....
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 June 2018
For other perspectives you may go thru;
Delhi High Court
Urmila Kumari vs Om Prakash Jangra And Ors on 20 March, 2015
Author: R. K. Gauba
42. The SARFAESI Act does not in any manner abrogate or dilute, and instead only reinforces or gives due protection to, the statutorily recognized right of the mortgager to redemption, which inures till the time of registration of the sale in the event of secured creditor enforcing it. Thus, in this scheme of things, a borrower can tender to the secured creditor the dues together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by the secured creditor at any time before the property is brought to sale or transfer. In the event of such tender, the statutory mandate is that the secured asset cannot be sold or transferred. All actions in the direction of sale or transfer must stop forthwith.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5866140/
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 June 2018
Kerala High Court
K.T.Unnikrishnan vs The Authorised Officer
When the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder are analysed and understood in the background of article 300A of the Constitution, it is clear that when it comes to the question of realising the dues of the secured creditors by bringing the property entrusted with them for sale to realise money advanced without approaching any court or tribunal, the secured creditor is a trustee and he cannot deal with the property in any manner it likes. The secured creditor, in the circumstances, is duty bound to ensure that maximum price is received from the secured asset and that no one is taking advantage of the vulnerable possession in which the borrower is placed on account of the proceedings against him.
In other words, the secured creditor is bound to ensure that the rights of the owner of the security is not infringed in any manner. Merely because a secured interest in a secured asset is created by the borrower in favour of the secured creditor, the said asset cannot be disposed of in a casual or light-hearted manner (See Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar [(2014) 5 SCC 610]). It is relevant in this context to refer to the following observations made by the Apex court in Ram Kishun v. State of U.P [(2012) 11 SCC 511] :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138968185/
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 June 2018
And;
Kerala High Court
K.T. Unnikrishnan vs The Uco Bank
Petitioner is the defaulter of a loan availed of from the first respondent Bank. When SARFAESI proceedings were initiated, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition. This Court passed order dated 24.11.2009 staying dispossession of the petitioner for a period of two weeks subject to the condition that the petitioner remits Rs.5 Lakhs before 4.12.2009. This order was not complied with. Therefore petitioner filed I.A.15746/2009 seeking extension of time. However no orders were obtained on the I.A. This therefore, means that the interim order has expired long ago and by virtue of the lapse of time subject matter of this writ petition itself no longer survives to be considered.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80696704/
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 June 2018
Preferably act under advise of your LOCAL counsel as suggested above..
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Agreeing with entirely different opinions of other experts clearly lacks any expertise and knowledge on the part of the agreeing expert.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Agreeing with entirely different opinions of other experts clearly lacks any expertise and knowledge on the part of the agreeing expert.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Agreeing with entirely different opinions of other experts clearly lacks any expertise and knowledge on the part of the agreeing expert.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Agreeing with entirely different opinions of other experts clearly lacks any expertise and knowledge on the part of the agreeing expert.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Agreeing with entirely different opinions of other experts clearly lacks any expertise and knowledge on the part of the agreeing expert.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Agreeing with entirely different opinions of other experts clearly lacks any expertise and knowledge on the part of the agreeing expert.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Agreeing with entirely different opinions of other experts clearly lacks any expertise and knowledge on the part of the agreeing expert.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
Agreeing with entirely different opinions of other experts clearly lacks any expertise and knowledge on the part of the agreeing expert.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
OF COURSE, DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK AND SURRENDER OF PROPERTY IN SETTLEMENT OF YOUR LOAN ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE NOTICED ANY LACK IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK, YOU CAN FILE A CASE AGAINST THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE.
BUT, YOU HAVE NOT MADE MENTION ABOUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THEIR PART, WHICH MAY PLEASE BE MADE CLEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOME DEFINITE OPINION.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
OF COURSE, DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK AND SURRENDER OF PROPERTY IN SETTLEMENT OF YOUR LOAN ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE NOTICED ANY LACK IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK, YOU CAN FILE A CASE AGAINST THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE.
BUT, YOU HAVE NOT MADE MENTION ABOUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THEIR PART, WHICH MAY PLEASE BE MADE CLEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOME DEFINITE OPINION.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
OF COURSE, DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK AND SURRENDER OF PROPERTY IN SETTLEMENT OF YOUR LOAN ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE NOTICED ANY LACK IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK, YOU CAN FILE A CASE AGAINST THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE.
BUT, YOU HAVE NOT MADE MENTION ABOUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THEIR PART, WHICH MAY PLEASE BE MADE CLEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOME DEFINITE OPINION.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
OF COURSE, DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK AND SURRENDER OF PROPERTY IN SETTLEMENT OF YOUR LOAN ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE NOTICED ANY LACK IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK, YOU CAN FILE A CASE AGAINST THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE.
BUT, YOU HAVE NOT MADE MENTION ABOUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THEIR PART, WHICH MAY PLEASE BE MADE CLEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOME DEFINITE OPINION.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
OF COURSE, DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK AND SURRENDER OF PROPERTY IN SETTLEMENT OF YOUR LOAN ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE NOTICED ANY LACK IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK, YOU CAN FILE A CASE AGAINST THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE.
BUT, YOU HAVE NOT MADE MENTION ABOUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THEIR PART, WHICH MAY PLEASE BE MADE CLEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOME DEFINITE OPINION.
Guest
(Expert) 18 June 2018
OF COURSE, DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK AND SURRENDER OF PROPERTY IN SETTLEMENT OF YOUR LOAN ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE NOTICED ANY LACK IN SERVICE ON THE PART OF THE BANK, YOU CAN FILE A CASE AGAINST THE BANK ON ACCOUNT OF DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE.
BUT, YOU HAVE NOT MADE MENTION ABOUT ANY DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE ON THEIR PART, WHICH MAY PLEASE BE MADE CLEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOME DEFINITE OPINION.
Ms.Usha Kapoor
(Expert) 18 June 2018
DHINGRA jI,
dON'T UNDER ESTIMATE ME.
I got smart Indian woman award for my blog. I write on law,politics,Health,economy,Personality,lifestyle,
somesh
(Querist) 18 June 2018
dhingra ji you might be having different opinion but criticizing your friends is not good. u might be senior to them but their expertise may amaze you.
Hemant Agarwal
(Expert) 24 June 2018
INTROSPECT ON THIS:
1. INSTEAD OF STRUGGLING ON A LOST BATTLE: Using a proxy buyer, you can acquire the property, which the Bank is selling at 50% lower than the actual market price.
2. ACCORDING to your own calculations, you would stand to gain 50% (of actual market price) and 25% (of valuation report price). Therefore you stand to gain 75% immediately.
Note: You have forgone JUSTICE, "WHEN" you voluntarily gave away POSSESSION of the property to the Bank.
Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
Bhaskaran Advocate
(Expert) 28 January 2019
The Bank would have filed a case against you in DRT court. There you can appear and stay the auction sale by praying time to clear the dues.
Consumer Courts are out of purview and cannot step in.
