Query under SARFAESI Act

buyer has to be aware.as such the bank had permitted you to see the property ,inspite of the same you have neglected to see the property.if at all you have visited the place you would have known from theassociation and other dues.

you will not get anything if you go for a litigation its waste of your time and money  

 

You can get relief. As per the decisions of Supreme Court S 33(6) of SARFAESI Act is to be interpreted as it is the duty of the Bank to clear the charges before the property is handed over to you. You have two ways to approach the court- either you can approach the Consumer Court or you can file a writ petition against the bank. However before proceeding into any litigation, it is suggested that you also do a cost benefit analysis, since the second method is a bit costly.

Hi,

Please read it as s 13(6).

I think DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL of the State has jurisdiction to hear appeals/applications against all actions of authorised officer of the bank under securitisation act [SARFESI ACT]

i would like to know if there is any way by which possession of residential property lying with bank as security can be prevented. the intention of the borrower to liquidate the property to settle the dues is known to the bank however more time is not being provided. till date no notice or demand has been made by the bank in writing.

 

 

Mr. Sharat,

Without making inspection, you have participated in the tender / bid. You ought to have insisted for inspection of the secured asset before participating in the tender. Having participated in the tenders without inspection, you are not in order now to point out such lapses if any now. You have after purchasing the secured asset incurred Rs.50,000/-. That means that you have accepted the house without any demur. You have also taken possession of the house as is clear from the expenditure of repair incurred by you towards repair. Arrears of municipal taxes, maintenance charges up to date were paid by you to the Association. You have paid electricity charges to avoid disconnection. All these payments were not made to the bank. This is not ordinary sale. It is forced sale under the Act. In case of ordinary sale you would have paid higher amount than what you paid / incurred in the instant case. In my opinion you do not have strong case. Even otherwise your right to approach DRT is time barred now. Do not waste your money for litigation which also would consume your valuable time. 

Sir

Thanks for the reply, but its too late. However, I made a claim in Consumer Forum and I was awarded taxes paid to the government authorities and Forum observed that the Bank should have notified the dues to be payable to the authorities.

Thank you very much

Sir Thanks for the reply, I made a claim in Consumer Forum and I was awarded taxes paid to the government authorities and Forum observed that the Bank should have notified the dues to be payable to the authorities.