Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 281 - HC - Indian LawsSale of immovable property by secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - Failure to obtain consent for extended time - Held that:- In Mathew Varghese [2015 (1) TMI 461 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court was of the view that, the secured creditor was entitled to enforce the secured asset in conformity with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In J. Rajiv Subramaniyan & Anr. [2014 (6) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court considered Mathew Varghese [2015 (1) TMI 461 - SUPREME COURT] and was of the view that, the secured creditor as a trustee of the secured asset cannot deal with the same in any manner it likes and that such an asset can be disposed of only in the manner prescribed in the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Applying the ratio laid down in Mathew Varghese , J. Rajiv Subramaniyan & Anr. to the facts of this case, the irresistible conclusion is that, the secured creditor while enforcing the secured asset in the instant case did not do so in conformity with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by failing to obtain the consent of the writ petitioner who is the owner of the property put up for sale when extending the time for deposit of the balance purchase price by the purchaser. Such consent of the writ petitioner is mandatory as laid down in J. Rajiv Subramaniyan & Anr. In such circumstances I find that the sale conducted by the secured creditor in respect of the property of the writ petitioner put up for sale by the notice dated April 11, 2014 is vitiated. Such sale is declared as null and void. - Decided in favour of appellant.
|