Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 566 - HC - Indian LawsInterpretation of statute - details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced" mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the SARFAESI Act - power of Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to test the validity of notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act? - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of the material on record and as also discussed not only by the Tribunal but also the learned single judge there was an issue raised earlier and pending between the parties regarding the rate of interest at which the secured creditor was calculating. According to the borrower, the rate of interest was higher as was being applied by the secured creditor than what actually it could claim under the agreement. The learned single judge had referred to such facts in paragraphs 5.1 to 6.1 of the judgment. The learned single judge had also placed reliance upon the view taken by the Patna High Court as also the High Court of Calcutta while interpreting the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 13 of the SARFAESI Act - Application dismissed. Scope of section 17 of the SARFAESI Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the borrower took an objection of non-compliance of sub-section (3), in his objection/representation given sub-section (3A), but despite the same the bank-secured creditor in the present case rejected the objection instead of ensuring the compliance of sub-section (3). A perusal of the notice under sub-section (2) which is already reproduced above does not spell out the details of the amount payable by the borrower, but only mentions a lump sum aggregate amount. The dispute with regard to rate of interest being charged by the bank was pre-existing the stage of section 13, and therefore, when the borrower called upon the secured creditor to provide the details, as a fair and reasonable secured creditor-the appellant-bank ought to have come out with such details, justification of such details would be a different aspect, but the bank could not withhold the details - Even the details of the secured assets had not been correctly provided as recorded by the Tribunal, which finding has not been altered or upset at any subsequent stage. If the bank withholds the details, as in the present case, then such action cannot be sustained. The present case, is a classic example how the judicial system is getting clogged with frivolous litigation. The facts and the circumstances that have led to the filing of the present appeal, leave us with no choice but to impose exemplary costs on the appellant secured creditor. This matter requires costs to be imposed upon the appellant-bank which we quantify at ₹ 5 lakhs per appeal. The amount of costs to be deposited within one month from today with the Registrar General of this court whereupon the same shall be transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority. This amount is to be recovered from the officers found responsible for carrying on this frivolous litigation.
|