Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a purchaser in possession under an unregistered agreement to sell could resist measures under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the basis of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (ii) Whether the writ petition should be entertained when an efficacious remedy is available under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Issue (i): Whether a purchaser in possession under an unregistered agreement to sell could resist measures under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the basis of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Analysis: An agreement to sell, without a registered conveyance, does not by itself create legal title in immovable property. The protection of part performance under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 cannot be pressed against a mortgagee enforcing security interest under the special statute. The enforcement action was directed against mortgaged property that continued to stand in the name of the borrower or guarantor, and the special enactment gave overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Conclusion: The petitioners could not the Bank from proceeding under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the strength of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition should be entertained when an efficacious remedy is available under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Analysis: The remedy under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is a substantive forum for examination of objections once a measure under section 13(4) is taken. Questions such as the genuineness of the alleged purchase, the status of the petitioners, and the effect of the bank's action involve disputed facts better examined by the statutory forum rather than in writ proceedings. The availability of that remedy warranted judicial restraint under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for pre-empting action under the special statute, and the petitioners were left to pursue the statutory remedy after measures under section 13(4) were taken.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bank's enforcement action failed, but liberty was preserved for the petitioners to make a representation to the bank and to invoke the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal after action under section 13(4) was taken.
Ratio Decidendi: A person claiming under an unregistered agreement to sell cannot invoke section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to defeat enforcement of a mortgagee's security interest under the special statute, and writ interference is ordinarily unwarranted where a statutory remedy under section 17 is available.