The Chhattisgarh High Court, in Manik Mehta vs. UCO Bank, has observed that even when the secured asset belongs to the guarantor, the borrower can also prefer an appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
Setting aside the DRAT order, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed: “The legislature intends to provide relief to the borrower by restoring the possession of the secured asset. Even if the term ‘borrower’ includes a ‘guarantor’, it does not exclude he borrower himself to disentitle him to prefer any appeal when the measures are taken under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002.”
Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/borrower-can-prefer-appeal-drt-even-mortgaged-property-belongs-guarantor-chhattisgarh-hc-read-judgment/
Setting aside the DRAT order, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed: “The legislature intends to provide relief to the borrower by restoring the possession of the secured asset. Even if the term ‘borrower’ includes a ‘guarantor’, it does not exclude he borrower himself to disentitle him to prefer any appeal when the measures are taken under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002.”
Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/borrower-can-prefer-appeal-drt-even-mortgaged-property-belongs-guarantor-chhattisgarh-hc-read-judgment/
Comments
Post a Comment