2015 (3) TMI 370 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses petition misusing Domestic Violence Act to avoid loan repayment, upholds bank rights under Securitisation Act.

The court dismissed the petition (WP No. 982 of 2014) criticizing the misuse of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to avoid bank ... Possession of asset by bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFASI)Act, 2002 - Taking shelter under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Held that:- The respondent bank has taken possession of the secured asset pursuant to orders obtained and by procedure established by law. It appears that at least one partner of the principal borrower firm had instituted proceedings in this Court which culminated in the bank being permitted to take steps in accordance with the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the said Act of 2002. No law nor any fact of any relevance has been cited in this petition for the Court to depart from the procedure recognised by the said Act of 2002 or interdict the steps taken by the bank. - Decided against the appellant. Issues involved:1. Misuse of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to avoid repayment of bank loans.2. Interpretation of rights under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.3. Validity of possession taken by the bank over a secured asset.4. Compliance with legal procedures by the bank in enforcing security interest.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses the misuse of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by individuals attempting to evade repayment of bank loans. The court criticizes the petitioner's attempt to use the Act to prevent the bank from exercising its rights under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The court dismisses the petitioner's convoluted logic and emotional appeals, emphasizing that reason must prevail over misplaced sympathy or emotional manipulation.2. The court examines the petitioner's reliance on the 2005 Act to protect a property already taken possession of by the bank. It highlights the petitioner's reference to specific sections of the Act and asserts that such attempts cannot override the rights of the bank as per the 2002 Act. The judgment underscores the importance of upholding legal procedures and not deviating from the established framework, irrespective of emotional appeals or festive occasions.3. Regarding the possession of the secured asset by the bank, the judgment notes that the bank had lawfully taken possession following due process and court orders. It mentions that legal proceedings initiated by the principal borrower firm had authorized the bank to proceed in accordance with the law, specifically under Section 14 of the 2002 Act. The court affirms the validity of the bank's actions in this regard.4. The judgment concludes by dismissing the petition (WP No. 982 of 2014) and imposing costs on the petitioner. It states that no relevant laws or facts were presented to justify deviating from the procedures outlined in the 2002 Act or to challenge the bank's actions. The court's decision underscores the importance of legal compliance and adherence to established procedures in matters related to the enforcement of security interests.