DRT Judgments Favourable / Useful to Borrowers and Guarantors are
as under
Full text of Judgments available on
this
Web Site against the links given:-
Note :- DRTS-00
stands for 'DRT Legal Solutions-00' and is the Citation for judgments on this
web site.
◙ DRTS-023
DRT-1 Chennai judgment on 'Dismissal of OA subsequent to invoking
Securitization Act' in the matter of 'Tetrahedron Ltd vs Indian Bank' decided on 08.11.13. The said
PO DRT ruled that OA filed by the Bank is not maintainable as the Bank has
already initiated recovery of dues by issuing notice u/s 13(2). Full text of the judgment is available vide link
www.drtsolutions.com/OA-Dismissal-Chennai.pdf Our comments on this judgment are available vide link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/OA-Dismissal-Chennai.htm
◙ DRTS-022
Nagpur District Magistrate judgment on 'Dismissal of Bank's
Application u/s 14' in the matter of 'State Bank of Patiala vs Shri Homraj Meghraj
Hiranvar' decided on 22.10.13. The said Magistrate ruled that since the Bank has
not followed the prescribed procedure, the application of the Bank u/s 14 is
dismissed. Full text of the judgment in Marathi is available vide link
www.drtsolutions.com/Magistrate-Nagpur.pdf
Translation
of the judgment in English with our comments is available vide link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/State%20Bank%20Patiala-Meghraj.htm
◙
DRTS-021
Calcutta High Court judgment on 'Publication of Photos in newspapers'
in the
matter of 'Ujjal Kumar vs SBI' decided on
03.05.13.
The said High Court ruled that the Publication of Photos in newspapers of the
borrowers to recover debts can not be resorted to as it is not covered in
Securitization Act.
Full text of the judgment with our comments and
important portion marked in Red is available vide link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Ujjal-Kumar-vs-SBI-2013.htm
◙
DRTS-020
Gujrat High Court judgment on 'Securitization Act not applicable to Co-operative
Banks'
in the
matter of 'Rajendra N Shah vs Unknown' decided on
22.04.13.
The said High Court ruled that the Amendment issued by the Govt in January 2013
is ultravires in respect of co-operative banks.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments and important portion marked in Red is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Rajendra-Shah-vs-Unknown-2013.htm
◙
DRTS-019
Supreme Court judgment and order on 'Review due to Misconception of Court'
in the
matter of 'Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs Moat Rev. Mar Poulose Athanaslus' decided on
02.05.52.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court
and admit the Review.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Moran-Review-Misconception.htm
◙
DRTS-018
DRT-II Kolkota judgment and order on 'SA No 101 of 2011'
in the
matter of 'Azmeer Business Pvt Ltd. vs Union Bank of India' decided on
04.06.13.
The case has been decided in favour of the borrower. The PO DRT has set aside
the Bank's notice u/s 13(2), set aside the auction and ordered restoration of
the property to the borrower.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Azmeer-UBI-SA-allowed.htm
.
◙
DRTS-017
Supreme Court of India Judgment on 'Guarantor's Property - Constitutional and
Human Rights'
in the
matter of 'KSFC vs N. Narasimahaih & Others' decided on
13.03.08.
This
is highly relevant to get 'Complete justice for Guarantor's Property'.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/KSFC-Narasimahaih.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-016
Supreme Court of India Judgment on 'Frivolous and Unjust Litigation by
Bureaucracy'
in the
matter of 'Urban Improvement Trust vs Mohanlal' decided on
30.10.09.
This
is highly relevant to 'Frivolous, Unjust and Multiple Litigations' filed
by banks '.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Urban-Improvement-Trust-Mohanlal.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-015
Supreme Court of India Judgment on 'Review and Appeal - Simultaneous
Adjudication'
in the
matter of 'Thungabhadra Industries vs Govt of AP' decided on
20.10.63.
This
is highly relevant to 'Filing of Review and or Appeal and their adjudication'.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Thungabhadra-GovtAP-Review-Appeal.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-014
Supreme Court of India Judgment on 'Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing -
Fundamental Rights'
in the
matter of 'Maneka Gandhi vs UOI' decided on
25.01.78.
This
is highly relevant to 'Magistrate in Sec 14 of Securitization Act to provide
opportunity of hearing to Borrowers'.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Maneka-Gandhi-UOI-Natural-Justice.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-013
Supreme Court of India Judgment on 'Court, Tribunal, DRT, Transfer from Court to
DRT, Counter-claim and Appeal'
in the
matter of 'Nahar Industrial Enterprises vs Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp' decided on
29.07.09.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
www.drtsolutions.com/Nahar-HSBC-Counter-claim-Appeal.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-012
Supreme Court of India Judgment on 'DRTs even can go beyond CPC'
in the
matter of 'ICICI Ltd vs Grapco Industries Ltd' decided on
14.05.99.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/ICICI-Grapco.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-011
Supreme Court of India Judgment on 'Counter-claim can be filed even after filing
of WS'
in the
matter of 'Mahendra Kumar vs State of MP' decided on
04.05.87.
Full text of
the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Mahendra-MP.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-010
Supreme Court of India Judgment on 'Discovery, Production and Inspection of
Documents'
in the
matter of 'H.L. Sethi vs R.P. Kapur' decided on
19.07.72.
Full text of the
judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Sethi-Kapur.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-09
Kerala High Court Judgment on 'Bank's Application to Magistrate u/s 14 is
appealable to DRT u/s 17'
in the
matter of 'Sami vs Bank of India' decided on
22.07.11.
Full text of the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Magistrate-Appeal.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-08
Supreme Court Judgment on 'Points Pressed during Arguments have to be mentioned
in the Judgment/Order'
in the
matter of 'Mohd. Akram Ansari vs Chief Election Officer and Others' decided on
04.12.07.
Full text of the judgment with our
comments is available vide
link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/Points-Pressed.htm Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-07
Allahabad High Court Judgment on 'SA u/s 17 and 18 to be decided before any
Recovery Action'
in the
matter of 'Gulshan Rai, Jain and Others vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and
Others' decided on 28.09.11.
Full text of the judgment with our
comments is available vide
http://www.drtsolutions.com/SA-Before-Recovery.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-06
DRAT, Delhi Judgment on 'Counterclaim permissible in SA u/s 17 of Securitisation
Act'
in the
matter of 'Vijaya Bank vs B. L. Gupta' decided on 16.03.11.
Full text of the judgment with our
comments is available vide
http://www.drtsolutions.com/counterclaim-SA.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙ DRTS-05
Supreme Court Judgment on 'Property
Valuation, Sale, Auction and Disposal' in the matter of 'Ram Kishun & Others vs
State of UP & Others decided on 24.05.12. Full text of the judgment with our
comments is available vide
http://www.drtsolutions.com/SC-Property-Disposal.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-04
Karnataka High
Court Judgment on 'Notice u/s 13(4) is a must before initiating action u/s 14
for approaching to the Magistrate' in the matter of
K.R. Krishnegowda vs Authorised Officer decided on 27.03.12.
Full text of the judgment with our
comments is available vide link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/13(4)-14-Magistrate.htm Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-03
Patna High
Court Judgment on 'Dismissal of the OA' in the matter of Purnea Cold Storage vs
State Bank of India decided on 27.08.12. As soon as SA is filed, the existing OA
or if OA is filed, the same deserves to be dismissed. Full text of the judgment
with our comments is available vide link
www.drtsolutions.com/OA_Dismissal.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
◙
DRTS-02
Supreme Court
of India on simultaneous proceedings of OA and SA in the matter of Transcore vs
Union of India decided on 29.11.06 :- Full text of this
judgment is available on this site vide link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/sc_judgment_on_drt,_securitisation,_transcore.htm
This judgment is referred to in the above Patna High Court Judgment. Past
several years, we have observed that majority of the advocates and the judges
are making mistake in interpreting this Transcore Judgment. Patna High Court has
supported our line of thinking.
◙
DRTS-01
Bombay High Court
Judgment on Condonation of Delay in the matter of Manilal Govindji Khona vs
Indian Bank decided on 29.08.12 :- Full text of this
judgment with our comments is available on this site vide link
www.drtsolutions.com/condonation_delay.htm
Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red. We have been opining past several
years that the matter of condonation of delay has to be permitted in the DRTs
despite several judgments of the High Courts. Now our contentions have been
supported by this Bombay High court judgment.
22
.03.13 - DRT Solutions Weekly Mail - 254th
SC Useful Judgment on Valuation, Sale, Auction & Disposal of
Properties - Ram Kishun & Others vs Govt of UP & Others, 2012(2) DRTC
335(SC)
Following is the extract from our web page vide link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/DRT-Judgments.htm
Comments by DRT Legal Solutions
The full text of the
judgment is given on our web site vide link http://www.drtsolutions.com/SC-Property-Disposal.htm Important
portions have been shown in Red.
This is one of the most
useful and important SC judgments on Valuation, Sale, Auction and
Disposal of properties. The following extracts of the judgment are
relevant:-
8 Undoubtedly, public money should be recovered and recovery should be
made expeditiously. But it does not mean that the Financial
Institutions which are concerned only with the recovery of their loans,
may be permitted to behave like property dealers and be permitted
further to dispose off the secured assets in any unreasonable or
arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of statutory provisions.
9. A right to hold property is a constitutional right as well as a human
right. A person cannot be deprived of his property except in accordance
with the provisions of statute. (Vide: Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram,
(2007) 10 S.C.C. 448; and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 1589).
Thus, the condition precedent for taking away someone's property or
disposing off the secured assets, is that the authority must ensure
compliance of the statutory provisions.
17. In view of the above, it is evident that there must be an
application of mind by the authority concerned while approving/
accepting the report of the approved valuer and fixing the reserve
price, as the failure to do so may cause substantial injury to the
borrower/guarantor and that would amount to material irregularity and
ultimately vitiate the subsequent proceedings.
19. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that law requires a
proper valuation report; its acceptance by the authority concerned by
application of mind and then fIxing the reserve price accordingly ~"1d
acceptance of the auction bid taking into consideration that there was
no possibility of collusion of the bidders. The authority is duty bound
to decide as to whether sale of part of the property would meet the
outstanding demand. Valuation is a question of fact and valuation of the
property is required to be determined fairly and reasonably.
20. - - there must be a proper valuation report, which should be
communicated to the judgment debtor and he should me his own valuation
report and the sale should be conducted in accordance with law. After
confirmation of sale, there should be issuance of sale certificate.
Court cannot interfere unless it is found that some material
irregularity in the conduct of sale has been committed. The Court
further held that it should not be a forced sale. A valuer's report
should be as good as the actual offer and the variation should be within
limit. Such estimate should be done carefully. The Court further held
that unless the Court is satisfied about the adequacy of the price the
act of confirmation of the sale would not be a proper exercise of
judicial discretion
15.03.13 - DRT Solutions Weekly Mail - 253rd
DRT Important Judgment - Notice u/s 13(4) is Must before initiating
Action u/s 14 - Karnataka
H.C. - K.R. Krishnegowda vs Authorised Officer, 2013(1) Bankers' Journal
382
Following is the extract from our web page vide link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/DRT-Judgments.htm
(a) Full
text of the this very useful DRT judgment for the borrowers has been
given on our web site vide link http://www.drtsolutions.com/13(4)-14-Magistrate.htm Important
portions of the judgment have been marked in Red.
(b) It
is observed that in many cases, after issue of notice under section
13(2) and just after getting the Objection and Representation from the
borrowers, the banks are approaching the Magistrate without any notice
to the borrower. The Magistrate issues the order for possession and at
the last moment, the possession is taken all of a sudden. As per this
judgment, the notice u/s 13(4) as well as paper publication is
mandatory. Hence it is one of the important judgment helpful to the
borrowers.
(c) In
this connection it is relevant to submit that past several years we have
been cautioning our clients to be in touch with the office of the
Magistrate as well as to file caveat. This judgment has validated our
approach.
08.03.13 - DRT Solutions Weekly Mail - 252nd
Condonation of Delay Important Judgment of Bombay High Court
We have
been opining past several years that the Law of Limitation in respect of
condonation of delay is also applicable in DRTs though there have been several
contradictory judgments of various High Courts
Finally the
Bombay High Court vide citation [2013 (1) DRTC 162 (Bom)] in the matter of
Manilal Govindji Khona vs Indian Bank has passed an important judgment on
29.08.12. Full text of the judgment may be seen by clicking the link
http://www.drtsolutions.com/condonation_delay.htm
19.06.12 -
DRT Solutions Weekly Mail - 216th
(a)
2012 (1) DRTC 800 (Bom), Sterlite Technologies vs Union of India
- Writ Petition in Bombay High Court decided on 22.12.11 - DRT Act Sec 21
Proviso Appeal Waiver of Deposit Dispension with condition of pre-deposit
sought Elements of prima facie case and question of financial hardship
required to be considered by the DRAT DRAT did not consider application for
waiver in terms of legal position Impugned order of DRAT set aside
Application for waiver of deposit restored to file of DRAT for a decision
afresh.
(b)
2012 (1) DRTC 846 (P & H), Shiv Charan Singh vs Haryana State Industrial &
Infrastructure Development Corporation
Writ Petition in Punjab and Haryana High Court decided on 09.01.12 SFC Act
Sec 29 and 31(1) (aa) Auction Sale Jurisdiction of Corporation Parties by
agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on Corporation to proceed against the
guarantor u/s 29 of the Act Sec 29 can be exercised only against the
industrial concern Corporation has a right to proceed against guarantor u/s 31
or u/s 32-G but Sec 29 confers limited jurisdiction on Corporation to act
against the industrial concern alone.
01.06.12 -
DRT Solutions Weekly Mail - 212th
(a)
Securitisation Act Sec 17 Limitation Act, Sec 5 shall apply Allahabad High
Court - Citation- 2012 (2) Bankers Journal 78, State Bank of Patiala vs
Chairperson DRAT Allahabad
(b)
Securitisation Act Sec 13(4) Appeal u/s 17 maintainable if action is against
Act or Rules framed thereunder e.g. notice for possession, preparation of
Panchnama, notice to sell property, to take assistance of DM/CMM/CJM for taking
possession etc. DRT cannot reject appeal on the ground that it was premature
or not maintainable Gujrat High Court - Citation 2012(2) Bankers Journal
93, Analkumar Rajkishore Mishra vs Dena Bank
27.04.12 -
DRT Solutions Weekly Mail - 207th
(a)
Securitisation Act Demand Notice u/s 13(2) Requirement of Notice to be
served on each and every person involved in transacation Appeal pending with
DRT Auction sale stayed by Allahabad High Court till disposal of SA
citiation [2012(1) DRTC 460 (All)]
(b)
Securitisation Act Auction Sale Nothing on record to show that Bank has
affixed notice in the conspicuous place of immovable property Non-compliance
of sub-rule (7) of Rule 8 which is mandatory would render sale invalid Sale
set aside by Madras High Court citiation - [2012(1) DRTC 520 (Mad)]
(c)
Securitisation Act sale by private treaty also permissible only one
condition being that it shall be on such terms as settled between the parties in
writing presence of debtor and his willingness in writing are essential Bank
Manager exceeded his authority for reasons known to him proper procedure not
followed by bank the auction purchaser directed to hand over the possession
back to the bank after getting refund of the sale amount within a week by the
bank- [2012(1) DRTC 525 (Mad)]
06.04.12 - DRT Solutions Weekly Mail - 204th
(a) [2012 (1) DRTC
407 (P & H)], Sushil Kumar vs State Bank of Patiala Securtisation Act 2002,
Sec 13(4) Security Interest - Notice to take over possession Bank not
issued any notice u/s 13(2) Action of the Bank in giving notice to take over
possession can not be sustained Said noitce set aside.
(b) [2012 (1) DRTC
398 (Mad)], Central Bank of India vs DRT Coimbatore Compromise entered between
bank and borrower Settlement in Lok Adalat referred to DRT DRT made
unnecessary and unwarranted comments about authority of the bank in arriving at
settlement It is duty of the court to encourage same When bank accepted
certain amount for settlement, it is not for DRT to question same either
regarding quntum of interest or quantum of waiver DRT has not chosen to
appreciate latest concepts which has developed in the country impugned order
of DRT set aside DRT directed to record award passed by Lok Adalalt and give
its formal order.
(c) [2012 (1) DRTC
392 (Knt)], N.B. Gurudeva vs State Bank of Mysore Securitisation Act Sec 13
Contract Act Sec 133 to 135 Security Interest Enforcement of Notice u/s
13(2) issued to guarantor Guarantor filing writ petition Parties entering
into compromise to exclusion of guarantor Novation of contract Liability of
guarantor ceased to exist Bank initiiating proceeding for recovery of dues
pursuant to compromise arrived at between bank and principal debtor, as if said
amount is due under original loan transaction Notice issued to guarantor held
without basis and quashed property of guarantor can not be attached.
