STRIDHAN UNDER SECURITISATION ACT
J. P. Shah
(Querist) 09 July 2008
This query is : Resolved
STRIDHAN AND OTHER BELONGINGS OF WIFE KEPT IN FLAT OF HER HUSBAND WAS TAKEN INTO PHYSICAL CUSTODY BY BANK OFFICERS WHILE LOCKING FLAT UNDER SECURITISATION ACT AS HUSBAND DEFAULTED. WIFE IS NO WAY CONNECTED TO BANK WHICH BANK HAS CONFIRMED IN REPLY TO RTI QUERY. SHE WAS DEPRIVED CUSTODY DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS FOR NEARLY ONE YEAR. CERTAIN GOLD ITEMS ARE MISSING FROM THE FLATS DURING POSSESSION OF THE BANK. APPROACHING DRT IS NOT AFFORDABLE TO HER AS ADVOCATES ARE COSTLY AT THE CAPITAL OF THE STATE AND CAPITAL IS FAR AWAY FROM HER RESIDENCE. CAN SHE MOVE DISTRICT COURT FOR DAMAGES/CLAIMS ETC? HER CRIMINAL COMPLAINT IS PENDING IN LOCAL COURT. PL ALSO REFER SEC 17 & 18 OF THE RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT 1993, WHERE JURISDICTION OF OTHER COURTS IS BARRED ONLY FOR APPLICATIONS FROM BANKS AND FI.FOR RECOVERY. HENCE I THINK DIST CIVIL COURTS CAN TRY THIS CASE. I SOLICIT EXPERT GUIDANCE TO HELP THE LADY.
R.S.Rajesh
(Expert) 10 July 2008
As it is alleged that the bank has taken posession of the assets under the Securitisation Act , the DRT alone has the jurisidiction under the Securitisation Act on an appeal filed under Section 17 of the said Act and not under Recovery Act quoted . It is only in states of Jammu & Kashmir, the Dist. court has the jurisidiction. However, as the assets ( Stridhan) is reportedly not given as security and belongs to the wife who is not connected with the loan raised by her husband, you can explore the possiblity of filing a suit for negligence of the bank officials and claim damages in the concerned Dist. Court in view of the difficulties expressed.
J. P. Shah
(Querist) 10 July 2008
THANKS A LOT SIR. I REQUEST YOU TO REFER JUDGEMENT IN INDIAN BANK V/S ABS MARINE PRODUCTS PVT LTD. JT 2006[5]SC 281; SCC 2006[5] PG 72. MY ADVOCATE SAYS THAT UNDER SEC 17 & 18 [OF RECOVEY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND FI ACT 1993],THE CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION IS BARRED IN REGARD TO ONLY APPLICATIONS BY BANKS FOR RECOVERY OF DEBTS AND NOT BARRED FOR A SUIT BY BORROWER OR THIRD PARTY AGAINST THE BANK. TOTAL DUES WERE 5 LACS FROM HER HUSBAND WHICH ARE NOW PAID FULLY. WHEN WIFE WAS NOT A BORROWER/GUARANTOR/CONNECTED TO LOANS, HOW CAN BANK INITIATE ACTION UNDER SECURITISATION ACT AGAINST HER? NO 60 DAY NOTICE WAS GIVEN NOR POSSESSION NOTICE ETC WAS SERVED ON HER. PL ADVISE SIR. SHE IS IN DESPERATE NEED OF CORRECT GUIDANCE. LOCAL ADVOCATES ARE NOT WELL VERSED WITH SECURITISATION ACT OR DRT ETC
