Skip to main content

Borrower/Debtor Can File Securitisation Application At The Stage Of The Possession Notice under Safaesi Rule

In M/S HINDON FORGE PVT. LTD. vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the full bench of the Allahabad High Court wherein the high court had held that a securitisation application under Section 17(1) of the Act is maintainable only when actual/physical possession is taken by the secured creditor or the borrower loses actual/physical possession of the secured assets. The high court had further held that taking “symbolic possession” or issuance of possession notice, cannot be treated as “measure”/s taken under Section 13(4) of the Act and, therefore, the borrower at that stage cannot file application under Section 17(1) of the Act.

While referring to all previous major judgments including Mardia Chemicals, Travancore & Nobel Kumar, the Supreme Court actually turned the clock back on the often disputed issue of Symbolic &  Physical Possession by setting aside the order of the Full bench. The Court decided that after possession notice is issued under Rule 8(1) & (2), there is no difference between Symbolic or Physical Possession as far as the grievance of a borrower is concerned. The Court observed that the object of providing a remedy against the wrongful action of a secured creditor to a borrower will be stultified if the borrower has to wait until a sale notice is issued, or worse still, until a sale actually takes place. Referring to newly inserted APPENDIX – IV-A, the bench said it makes clear that rule 8(1) and 8(2) refer to constructive possession whereas rule 8(3) refers to physical possession. “Whether possession taken under rule 8(1) and 8(2) is called symbolic possession or statutory possession, the fact remains that rule 8(1) and rule 8(2) specifically provide for a particular mode of possession taken under section 13(4)(a) of the Act,” the court said setting aside the High Court judgment.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more