Skip to main content

Secured creditor has no role after property sale

The issue raised in the writ petition United Bank of India & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., is whether a secured creditor is entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 2002 subsequent to the sale of an immovable property over which it claims security interest?

The petitioners submited that, the first petitioner had made an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the concerned District Magistrate on September 9, 2013. Such application has not been considered and decided till date. He seeked expeditious disposal of such application.

The Calcutta High Court said that the words ‘sale and ‘transfer’ used in Section 14 of the Act of 2002 are not synonymous. The word ‘transfer’ used as a verb means that, a person is conveying or removing from one place or one person to another or is passing or handing over something to another person. It can also mean changeover of the possession or control of a given thing. Transfer is, therefore, wider than sale. As noted above, it may include an element of making over of possession.

The word ‘transfer’ used in Section 14, therefore, can mean making over of possession of an immovable property. It is contended by the petitioners that, since the word ‘transfer’ used in Section 14 of the Act of 2002 includes an act of making over of possession, the petitioner as the secured creditor can legitimately invoke Section 14 of the Act of 2002 even after a conveyance in respect of an immovable property sold, has been executed and registered. With respect, this contention of the petitioner overlooks the fact that, the right, title and interest of the secured creditor and the vendor stands transferred to and vested with the purchaser upon the execution and registration of the deed of conveyance which is otherwise duly stamped. On and from the date of such document, the secured creditor ceases to have any interest in respect of the immovable property concerned. The legal or the deeming fiction of Section 13 ceases to operate upon such sale deed being registered. Therefore, the secured creditor does not retain any further right to meddle with the immovable property under the provisions of the Act of 2002 in order to invoke Section 14 of the Act of 2002 for the purpose of possession or otherwise.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more