SARFAESI limits on third-party movables prevent banks from selling tenant property or recovering preservation charges.

A bank cannot treat a tenant's movables as secured assets under the SARFAESI Act when those goods were never offered as security and the tenant is neither borrower nor guarantor. Possession taken through section 14 does not expand the bank's statutory power to sell third-party goods, and a section 13(2) notice issued only to the borrower does not authorise action against the tenant's property. Costs, charges and expenses under section 13(7) are recoverable from the borrower in relation to secured assets, not from a stranger to the loan transaction. The bank therefore had no legal basis to retain the goods or demand reimbursement from the tenant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bank could invoke the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to bring the petitioner's movables for sale and demand reimbursement of preservation charges when those movables were neither secured assets nor the property of the borrower.

Analysis: The movables belonged to the petitioner, who was only a tenant, and they were not offered as security for the borrowal. The petitioner was neither a guarantor nor a borrower, and notice under section 13(2) had been issued to the borrower, not to the petitioner. The Court held that mere possession taken through proceedings under section 14 did not enlarge the bank's statutory to sell third-party goods under the Act. It further held that the costs, charges and expenses contemplated by section 13(7) are recoverable from the borrower in relation to secured assets and cannot be fastened on a stranger to the loan transaction. The bank's attempt to retain the goods and insist upon reimbursement therefore lacked legal basis.

Conclusion: The bank had no authority to sell the petitioner's movables or recover the claimed charges from the petitioner.

---