Skip to main content

SARFAESI : Borrower Has No Right Of Hearing In Proceedings Under Section 14

In HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED vs M/S. REMO SOFTWARE PVT. LTD, the matter pertained Section 14 proceedings initiated by banks against few tenants, who were possessing the secured assets on lease. Challenging the SARFAESI proceedings initiated against them, they approached the High Court.

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, directing them to approach the DRT against the proceedings within two weeks under Section 17(4A) of the Act. The proceedings were kept in abeyance for two weeks based on the undertaking made by the bank. Going further, the Single Judge also held that even the borrower had to be heard before issuing directions under Section 14.

Challenging this direction regarding borrowers, appeal was before before the Division Bench.

The High Court of Karnataka referring to the judgments in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Limited and Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank of India and Ors, has held that borrower has no right of hearing in proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The aforesaid judgments in no manner provide that a borrower is also to be afforded an opportunity of hearing in the proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. That no such opportunity is envisaged in relation to the borrower remains a settled principle and may not require much elaboration.

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