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

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

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more