Skip to main content

Bank cannot break into a flat in case of loan default without judicial involvement

The Bombay high court has allowed proceedings against HDFC Bank over allegations that it seized a flat in Pune by breaking open the locks after its owners defaulted on a loan. Justice Abhay Thipsay questioned whether the bank could have forcibly taken possession of the flat without a court order and directed a magistrate-ordered investigation into the case. The HC directive comes on a private complaint by the flat's owners, Milind Mahadik and his wife Aarti.

The bank said the couple were wilful defaulters and under law—Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act—it had powers to seize the flat. The judge held that while the law does not bar a bank from taking possession of a secured asset without court orders, when force is to be used, the district magistrate's orders are necessary.

"If breaking open the lock put on a flat and taking forcible possession... is held to be permissible on the grounds that the SARFAESI Act empowers a secured creditor to do so without the intervention of the district magistrate, then it would be extremely dangerous. The problems arising from holding such a course to be legal will be more serious in cases where such a flat is residential," said Justice Thipsay, pointing out that the bank had not taken police assistance.

He said things can be complicated if the flat contains movable property and possession is taken "by a secured creditor on his own, and without involving the state machinery" by use of force. The Mahadiks had alleged that household articles like a refrigerator, washing machine, and computer, and gold and silver ornaments worth over Rs 22 lakh were in the flat. The HC said the possibility of the articles being stolen or the persons who took physical possession of the flat being falsely accused of theft could not be ruled out and so it was in the interest of the bank to take the state machinery's help in such cases.

In 2003, the Mahadiks had taken a loan of Rs 8.5 lakh to buy the flat. They claimed that they initially paid the EMIs regularly, but stopped after suffering losses in their business and also due to ill health. They said they asked the bank to restructure the payments, but received no reply. In 2008, the bank pasted a notice on the flat under the SARFAESI Act.

The couple alleged that some persons also used threatening language and abused them while asking them to repay the loan. On December 24, 2010, when the couple, who were staying elsewhere, visited the flat, they found that the bank had broken open the locks and sealed the property. They lodged a complaint before the magistrate, who dismissed it saying the couple were "defaulters". Their appeal in the sessions court too was dismissed. Then they approached the HC.

The bank said it was empowered under law to take possession of the flat, and as such it had not committed any criminal offence. The HC did not agree. "Whether offences have been committed in the process of taking possession of the said flat, and if so, by whom, can be properly decided only after an investigation is carried out," the judge said.

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Bank-cannot-break-into-a-flat-in-case-of-loan-default-rules-HC/articleshow/46015982.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...