2016 (12) TMI 364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th August, 2013 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Notice dated 19th October, 2015 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 being an abuses of process of law and also be pleased to direct the respondent No.5 to take stringent actions against the respondent No.4 for misusing the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002." 3. It appears that the petitioners in the year 2007 obtained loan of Rs. 17,54,000/- under Loan Account No.10997669 under an Agreement mortgaging property being "2, Siddhi Row House, Nr.Varun Hospital, Opp.Sindhu Seva Samiti School, Nr.Snesh Sankul Wadi, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat". Since the agreed installment was not paid regularly, the loan facility came to be recalled by the respondent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aving assigned its debt to Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a company under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the said Bank had proceeded by invoking provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to recover the amount from the petitioners. The Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited having stepped into the shoe of the original borrower, is entitled to take recourse to the provisions of the Act. Thereby it cannot be said, as sought to be contended, that there was duality of action or that the petitioners would suffer a double jeopardy, it is only one debt which is sought to be recovered. Nor it is the case that the debt is being recovered twice in which case it can be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... being caused to a borrower on account of an error on the part of the banks or financial institutions, certain checks and balances have been introduced in Section 17 which allow any person, including the borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor, to make an application to the DRT having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date of such measures having taken for the reliefs indicated in sub- section (3) thereof. 36. The intention of the legislature is, therefore, clear that while the banks and financial institutions have been vested with stringent powers for recovery of their dues, safeguards have also been provided for rectifying any error or wrongfu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (iii) Bharatbhai Ramniklal Sata Vs Collector and District Magistrate [AIR 2010 Gujarat 72] and (iv) Sonali Sunil Bhanushali Vs Authorized Officer, HDFC Bank being Letters Patent Appeal No.395 of 2016 decided on 06th May, 2016. 5.4 In United Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] the Apex Court observed, "the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitio....