Bharat Changela 19 August 2018
Adv Deepak Joshi +917017821512 (Advocate) 19 August 2018
Dear querist,
If the case has landed to session court then no need to follow instruction from NBFC, when required court will separately order you.
Possession of the Property: Under the SARFAESI act, at the time of the auction, the bank has either symbolic possession or physical possession of the property. In layman terms, symbolic possession means a bank or financial institution does not have the key of the property.
Thanks and Regards
Deepak Joshi & Associates
Djaa.legal@gmail.com
Mb/whatsapp +919456777600
Bharat Changela 19 August 2018
Palak Singh 01 April 2020
The term ‘symbolic possession’ comes under The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill, 2016. In layman terms, symbolic possession means a bank or financial institution does not have the key of the property. In other words, the property is still occupied by the borrower or the defaulter. Though under the SARFAESI Act, in the case of payment default, secured creditor i.e. bank can take physical possession of the property i.e. collateral. In certain cases, it is not feasible for the bank to take physical possession because of variousreasons. The secured creditor issues symbolic possession notice and then proceed with the auction based on symbolic possession.
The symbolic possession is preferred by Banks also for the reason that it gives a demonstration effect. The secured debtor is put to mental social pressure as he is defamed in the locality of his residence. In most of the cases where the symbolic possession is taken by putting the notice on the main entrance of the property/ residence and photographs are taken in the presence of four/five bankers showing the symbolic possession, the secured debtor comes under pressure and comes forward with the outstanding amount or for a settlement with the bankers.
One of the cases thatcan be referred to by you is Kottakkal Cooperative Urban Bank v. T Bala Krishnan [2008 (2) KLJ 8]. In this particular case, the secured debt was put to sake without taking actual possession and was bid by a third party auction purchahser.
Hope this answers your question
Regards,
Palak Singh