LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

RAM PROSAD BHATTACHARYA (director)     05 September 2014

Drt granting an injunction notice against sell of personal p

We are the promoters of a pvt ltd company against whom the secured creditor , the bank , has already initiated actions for recovery of outstanding dues by selling the motgaged properties under surfasei act on which bank has created charge. Meantime the bank also filed an OA  with DRT for attaching personal property identified belonging to the promoters siting reasons that sale of the securitized asset will fall short vs a vs the sales proceeds of the mortgaged assets . The DRT has issued a notice of injunction meantime asking the promoters to refrain from transferring / sale of the identified properties for a period of 6 months. One of such property is already mortgaged to other bank by way of a home loan My questions are

  1. what happens if the promoters sell the subject property
  2. what happend to the buyer who buys this property with / without knowledge of the subject injunctin
  3. what actions the promoter can take

Pl guide .

 



Learning

 2 Replies

Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Telangana state Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 )     05 September 2014

 If the ‘secured asset’ is not valuable in comparison to the dues recoverable, then, the officials of the Bank are to be blamed as to how they have sanctioned the loan in the first place.
 
Emphasis is always laid as to how to enable the Banks to speed-up their recovery, but, little emphasis is laid as to how the borrower feels remediless in some cases. Even while providing the best possible legal-framework enabling the Banks to recover their dues, the concerns of the borrower can certainly be addressed and it is very much possible. From the borrowers’ point of view, the following issues need to be considered.
 
a.     The Appeal mechanism under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 can be liberal and the borrower should be allowed to question every action initiated by the Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002 without raising any technicalities like condonation of delay etc.
 
b.     It should be mandatory on the part of the Banks to mention marketability and market price/price of the ‘secured asset’ in its reply to the appeal of the borrower under section 17 among other things.
 
c.      There should be time-limit for the Banks in filing their reply in an appeal under section 17 of the Act and in the absence of filing the reply within the specific period, the proceedings of the Bank under SARFAESI Act against the borrower should automatically be stayed.
 
d.     Though there is a time-limit for disposing the Appeals under section 17 in the Act, the disposal normally takes time. If work-load in the DRTs and DRATs is the main cause for the delay, then, additional DRTs and DRATs can be constituted and so that, Appeals under section 17 and under section 18 of the Act can be disposed of as quickly as possible.
 
e.     The scope of powers of the presiding officer of DRT under section 17 should be expanded further and it should include giving suitable directions to the Bank from time to time keeping the need of ‘recovery of dues’ in mind.  
 
With the system aimed at speedy recovery and balanced heavily towards the Bank, genuine borrowers who are not willful or habitual defaulters also get affected. The borrowers feel remediless now and even if the remedy is provided, most of the borrowers feel that the remedy provided is ineffective. 

Anjuru Chandra Sekhar (Advocate )     05 September 2014

You cannot knowingly sell the subject property without the consent of the Tribunal.  Any such action will attract penalties as stipulated by the DRT Act.  Before you venture on such task, you should inform the DRT about your intention and secure its approval which obviously you will not get.  Secondly, the bank which took mortgage of the property before it is attached by the DRT will enjoy the first charge on it.  If after that charge is satisfied anything remains that will be adjusted to the loan of other bank.  If I am correct the properties attached by DRT are not the secured assets of the loan against which DRT had given attachment order.  If they are secured assets, the first charge belongs to the bank to which such attachment order is given. 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register