Partial amount deposited as precondition for entertaining appeal U/s 18 of SARFAESI Act neither secured asset nor a lien #indianlaws

May
9
2016


The partial deposit before the DRAT as a pre-condition for considering the appeal on merits in terms of Section 18 of the Act, is not a secured asset. It is not a secured debt either, since the borrower or the aggrieved person has not created any security interest on such pre-deposit in favour of the secured creditor. Therefore,on disposal of the appeal, either on merits or on withdrawal, or on being rendered infructuous, in case, the appellant makes a prayer for refund of the pre-deposit, the same has to be allowed and the pre-deposit has to be returned to the appellant, unless the Appellate Tribunal, on the request of the secured creditor but with the consent of the depositors, had already appropriated the pre-deposit towards the liability of the borrower, or with the consent, had adjusted the amount towards the dues. It is also not a bailment with the bank as provided under Section 148 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872.




Writ Petitions against order passed by DRT in exercise of jurisdiction U/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be entertained #indianlaws

Apr
3
2016


Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the alternate remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. The writ remedy cannot be permitted to be availed as a routine/ matter of course, but only in exceptional circumstances.Unless the Court is convinced that the case falls under the exceptional categories, the writ petition filed against the order of the Tribunal, passed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, on account of the legislative intent behind the enactment of the SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act and the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court cannot be entertained.




Provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to override the provisions of Rent Control Act #indianlaws

Jan
31
2016


Supreme Court held that a landlord cannot be permitted to do indirectly what he has been barred from doing under the Rent Control Act, more so when the two legislations, that is the SARFAESI Act and the Rent Control Act operate in completely different fields.  The provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. A tenant cannot be arbitrarily evicted by using the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as that would amount to stultifying the statutory rights of protection given to the tenant.




Unnecessary adjournments must not be granted by the DRT

Sep
13
2013


Debt Recovery Tribunal(s) are constituted to ensure expeditious disposal of controversies/ issues between the banks and borrowers in the larger public interest.








© 2010-15