The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a property purchaser challenging a SARFAESI notice issued to the previous owner of a mortgaged property. The court held that the bank was entitled to recovery as the title was originally mortgaged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34013 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Shabana Aftab Respondent :- State Bank Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey,Rajnikant Rai Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-bank.
The petitioner claims to have purchased House/Flat No. S- 30/1 L-82, VDA Colony, Shivpur Development Scheme, Ward-Shivpur, District - Varanasi. by way of a registered sale deed dated 19.8.2008 from one Ram Adhar Pandey son of late Badri Pandey. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid immovable property was originally owned by one Rakesh Kumar (respondent no. 5) who had sold it to Sri Ram Adhar Pandey by way of registered sale deed dated 04.04.2005. Undisputedly, the aforesaid Rakesh Kumar took housing loan from the respondent bank. He defaulted in repayment of the aforesaid loan. Consequently, the respondent bank has initiated recovery proceedings and issued a notice dated 9.7.2018 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the 'SARFAESI Act') to Rakesh Kumar. Aggrieved with this notice, the petitioner who claims to be the subsequent purchaser of the disputed property, has filed the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the bonafide purchaser of the disputed property from one Ram Adhar Pandey and therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondent-bank in respect of the property for recovery of the loan granted to Rakesh Kumar are bad in law.
Sri P.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the respondent no. 5 Rakesh Kumar took home loan in the year 2003 and the disputed property was mortgaged with the bank and therefore, the entire action of the respondent bank is well in accordance with law.
We have carefully considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the disputed property was mortgaged with the respondent bank by Sri Rakesh Kumar in the year 2003. The original title deed of the property in dispute deposited by Rakesh Kumar is with the bank. It is
also not in dispute that the aforesaid Ram Adhar Pandey purchased the disputed property from the borrower Rakesh Kumar in year 2005 much after the property was mortgaged with the bank and therefore, neither the Ram Adhar Pandey nor the petitioner can be said to have acquired any valid right or title in the disputed property adversely affecting the right of the respondent bank.
In view of above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the proceedings initiated by the bank for recovery of loan from Rakesh Kumar.
The writ petition lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.10.2018
nd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition maintained by a bona fide purchaser can disentangle the mortgaged property from the bank's recovery proceedings.
Whether the bank initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act correctly in the present circumstances.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Shabana Aftab
State Bank Of India
B. Amit Sthalekar
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
