TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dispossession set aside for missing mandatory s.13(4) notice; lender not a financial institution when loans made</h1> <h3>Subash Chandra Panda Versus State Of Orissa And 6 Ors.</h3> HC held the dispossession void for failure to issue the mandatory notice under s.13(4) of the Securitization Act and determined the respondent housing ... - Issues Involved:1. Dispossession without proper notice u/s 13(4) of the Securitization Act.2. Status of Maharshi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. as a financial institution.3. Maintainability of the writ petition despite alternative remedies.Summary:Dispossession without proper notice u/s 13(4) of the Securitization Act:The petitioner challenged the dispossession from his residential house, alleging that no notice u/s 13(4) of the Securitization Act was given. The Court found that no separate notice u/s 13(4) was issued, which is mandatory before taking any measures specified in the said sub-section. This omission was deemed fundamental, as it affects the right of appeal u/s 17 of the Act.Status of Maharshi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. as a financial institution:The agreements for the loan were dated 26.5.2001 and 13.2.2002, while the notification declaring Maharshi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. as a financial institution was issued on 10.11.2003. The Court held that since the institution was not a financial institution at the time of the agreements, it could not invoke the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitization Act. The definitions of 'secured creditor' and 'security interest' were analyzed, concluding that the institution did not meet these criteria at the relevant times.Maintainability of the writ petition despite alternative remedies:The Court addressed the argument that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy u/s 17 of the Securitization Act. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in (Mrs.) Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petro Corporation Ltd., the Court held that the writ petition is maintainable when the proceeding is without jurisdiction. The Court found the dispossession action to be without jurisdiction and authority of law, thus maintaining the writ petition.Conclusion:The Court quashed the notices u/s 13(2) and any purported notice u/s 13(4) of the Securitization Act, declaring the actions of Maharshi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. unauthorized, illegal, and bad in law. The Court directed the restoration of possession of the residential house to the petitioner within 10 days and allowed the petitioner to seek damages in a civil court. The writ petition was allowed with costs assessed at Rs. 10,000 to be paid by Maharshi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
