Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court, in Canara Bank vs. M. Amarender Reddy, has held that it is permissible to simultaneously issue notice to the borrower about the intention to sell the secured assets and also to issue a public notice for sale of such secured asset by inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction. The high court, in the instant case, had observed that after a notice regarding intention to sell the secured asset under sub-rule 6 of Rule 8 is given by the authorised officer to the borrower, only on expiry of 30 days therefrom can the secured creditor take a decision about the mode of sale referred to in sub-rule 5 of Rule 8 the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, after giving notice to the borrower and then issue a public notice after expiry of further 30 days. By this interpretation, the high court has virtually re-written the provisions and inevitably extended the time frame of 30 days specified in sub-rule 6 of Rule 8, said the three-judge bench headed by ...

In Ashoke Kumar vs PNB, the Hon'ble Allahabad HC while quashing the proceedings initiated post notice under Section 13(4) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as the said notice was issued without duly informing the debtor about the auction of property and subsequent sale. Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi was hearing a petition filed by one Ashok Kumar who sought quashing of an order by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal(DRAT) dated March 6, 2013 wherein an appeal against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal(DRT) was dismissed. According to the order, the petitioner was serving in Punjab National Bank,Varanasi. During his service period, he took a housing loan of Rs.10 lacs in 2007 for construction of a house and deposited title deed of a property in his village in Varanasi as security. Then the petitioner defaulted in payment of instalments. Consequently, Ashok Kumar’s loan account was declared as ‘No...