Allowed

Sri S M Anand v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

DRT13 Sept 2023SA/728/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application to set aside a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. It held that while the demand was not time-barred, procedural lapses occurred as mandatory notices were not served to all borrowers shared a common security asset.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice dated 23.09.2022 set aside; e-auction sale on 28.10.2022 set aside; restoration of possession within seven days; liberty to initiate fresh proceedings after complying with statutory requir

Sri S M Anand versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBI.INAL - I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

PRESENT: SRI IMTI AZ ALI

¶3

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Dated the l{h day. of September,2023 ,\

¶5

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 728 OF 2022

¶6

Between

¶7

l. S.M Anand, S/o Somashekhar Marakala, Santhrupthi, Kodi Kanyana, (via) Sasthana, Udupi, Kamataka - 576226. 2. Dewar Power Limited, Santhrupthi, Kodi Kanyana. (via) Sasthana, Udupi, Karnataka - 576226. ...Applicants And 1. The authorised officer, Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd^(ARCIL), Unit No.3, 3'd Floor, Vishista Arcade, No.2243, 23'd Cross, BSK^2ndStage, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560070. 2. The authorised officer, Karnataka Bank Limited, Asset Recovery Management Branch, III Floor, Karnataka Bank Building, Kodialbail, Mangaluru, Karnataka - 575003. ...... Defendants

¶8

This Securitisation Application having^{beenheard on 10.04.2023in the presence} of Advocates M/s A.S Nanjundappa,^{RekhaB.S and SoumyaN for the applicants.and} Advocate Shri Manoj J Shah for^the l't^{defendant,and the 2nd defendantbeing absent,} and stood over to this day for^{consideration, the Tribunaldelivered the following:-}

¶9

FINAL ORDER

¶10

The applicants filed the above Securitisation^{Application (SA) on 21.10.2022} under S.l7(1) of the Securitisation^{and Reconstntctionof F'inancial Assetsand}

¶11

sA728t2022

¶12

Enforcement of Security Interest Acq 2002 as amended from time to time - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' -^praying to set aside the sale notice dated 24.09.2022.^The applicants are none other than the borrowers of different^{financial assistancesoriginally} availed from the 2'd defendant bank.

¶13

The case set out by the applicants in the SA in brief is as follows:- The applicants by long drawn process of law and advancement of arguments have set forth the following grounds in the SA to support their relief sought for. The applicants are the borrowers of different financial assistances originally availed from the 2nd defendant bank. No demand notice has been issued to these applicants. Since there is no security agreement is created there is no security interest is created in favour of the defendants. The debt is barred by limitation. The possession notice has been signed by the person in his dual capacities as Chief Manager and authorised offrcer. The security interest created has not been registered with CERSAI and hence the defendants are not entitled to enforce their security interest over the secured assets. The I't defendant has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions under the Act. The account has been classified as non-performing asset illegally and against the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The demand, possession and sale notices have not been properly issued. No proper valuation of the secured asset has been done. The valuation done is not intimated to the applicants. The reserve price was fixed not in consultation with the borrowers. The reserve price is too low compared to the market value. Exorbitant interest has been charged under the account. Penal interest charged and the same is capitalised. On the above lines, the applicants prayed to set aside the sale notice dated24.09.2022.

¶14

¶15

The I't defendant filed statement of objection contending as follows:- This defendant is an asset reconstruction company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. This defendant acquired the financial assets of the applicants from the 2nd bank under S.5 of the Act. The applicants availed loans from the 2nd defendant :::rO*,

¶16

sA728t2022

¶17

bank on duly executing the necessary loan security documents on 31.01.2007 and creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 31.03.2007 in respect of the schedule immovable properties in its favour. As the applicants failed to make repayment of the instalments in time, the account was classified as non-performing asset by the 2nd defendant bank. Thereafter the 2nd defendant issued demand notice dated 20.06.2018 and 11.05.2018, which has been duly served. As the applicants failed to discharge the debt due within sixty days from the date of receipt of the demand notice, the 2'd defendant took possession of the secured assets. In the meantime, the secured asset was transferred to this defendant by the 2nd defendant bank. Thereafter, this defendant issued sale notice dated23.09.2022 for sale of the secured assets fixing its reserve price at t258 lakhs. The e-auction of the properties was conducted on 28.10.2022 for {4 crores. On the above grounds, the I't defendant prayed for dismissal of the SA.

¶18

No summons is seen sent to the 2nd defendant. Therefore, the SA as against the 2"d defendant is dismissed.

¶19

The applicants produced seven documents along with the SA. For convenience, they are referred to as Annexures Al to 47. Similarly, the lstdefendant produced nine documents along with the statement of objection, rvhich are for convenience referred to as Annexures Bl to 89.

¶20

On the appreciation of the rival contentions, the only issue arises for consideration is as to whether the applicants are entitled to the relief prayed for?

¶21

¶22

This Tribunal would like to make a passive remark that the bank or the asset reconstruction company for whom the I't and 2nd authorised officers invoked the provisions under the Act have not been made a party in the cause title to the SA. The right to sue accrues under S.l7(1) of the Act to any person (including borrower) if he is aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (a) of S.13 of the Act taken secured creditor or his authorised officer under the Act. The secured creditor is a :1.:.

¶23

sA728t2022

¶24

¶25

creditor holding security the realisation of which would satisfu his claim. S.13(12) of the Act says that the right of the secured creditor can be exercised by one or more of his officers authorised in the manner as may be prescribed. 'Authorised officer' under R.2(a) is an officer of the secured creditor who is competent to exercise the rights of the secured creditor and also the right of the creditor secured under the Act to exercise power in respect to and also any other right of the secured creditor conferred under the Act. In the instant case, the secured creditors being companies, it can only be represented by its principal officers. On the showing of the applicants itself, they are aggrieved by Annexure ,A4 sale notice issued by the authorised officer of ARCIL, who does not have an independent status without the existence of the secured creditor. Therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the secured creditors should also have been made a party in the cause title along with the authorised officers. For convenience, the asset reconstruction company and the Karnataka bank are respectively referred to as 'ARCIL' and 'the 2"d defendant bank'.

¶26

The issue:- Admittedly, the applicants are the borrowers of different financial assistances originally availed from the 2nd defendant bank. According to the applicants, the equitable mortgage by deposit of title deed was created on 31.01 .2007 and hence the mortgage is barred by limitation as on 31.01.2019 and thus the sale notice dated24.09.2022 is barred by limitation. It appears to be their case that the debt is barred by limitation and hence the I't defendant is not entitled to enforce his security interest over the secured assets. According to the I't defendant, the applicants availed loan from the 2nd defendant bank on duly executing the necessary loan security documents on 31.01.2007 and creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 31.03.2007 in respect of the schedule immovable properties in its favour.

¶27

¶28

Annexure 87 is a copy of the credit sanction intimation dated 15.04.2013 bearing reference No.MDS LCFD 6/2013-14 issued by the 2nd defendant bank advising

¶29

sA72812022

¶30

the 2"d applicant sanction of term loan of 1600 lakhs with a sublimit of 1300 lakhs and a fresh one time bank guarantee facility with a limit of 162 lakhs, which had been countersigned by the 2"d defendant (represented by its Director) in token of having accepted the terms and conditions therein. Similarly, Annexure 88 is a copy of the credit sanction intimation dated 25.03.2016 bearing reference No. GMS/CRA/g01/l 7 13/201516125-03 issued by the 2nd defendant bank advising the 1't applicant sanction of over draft facility of {750 lakhs and bank guarantee limit of {950 lakhs. Annexure 86 is a copy of the term loan agreement executed by the l't applicant along with others on 3 I .01.2007 in favour of the 2nd defendant bank in respect of a loan of t90 lakhs. Annexure 85 (Annexure Al) is a copy of the memorandum of deposit of Annexure 89 title deed dated 18.01.2007 executed on 31.01.2007 by the l't applicant in favour of the 2'd defendant bank creating equitable mortgage over the schedule immovable property. A perusal of Annexure 86 term loan agreement shows that the loan of {90 lakhs, the repayment of which was secured by the equitable mortgage created over the schedule immovable property (as per schedule B therein) was to be repaid in 120 equated monthly instalments of 71,29,124l-, which will end on 3 L01 .201 7. Going by Annexu re 87 , the term loan of {600 lakhs (the repayment of which also was secured by the equitable mortgage created over the schedule immovable property) was to be repaid in 14 instalments commencing from27.10.2014 and ending on27.01.2021. Going by AnnexurcBT, the term loan of t1450 lakhs (the repayment of which also was secured by the equitable mortgage created over the schedule immovable property) was to be repaid in 14 instalments commencing ftom 27.10.2014 and ending on 27.01.2021. Going by Annexure 88 credit sanction intimation, the due date of over draft limit of 1750 lakhs and the bank guarantee limit of t950 lakhs (the repayment of which also was secured by the equitable mortgage created over the schedule immovable property) was2t.02.2Ol7.

¶31

¶32

sA728t2022

¶33

The period of twelve years of limitation for enforcement of mortgage right as under Art.62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is to be calculated not from the date of execution of the memorandum of deposit of title deed as understood by the applicants but from the date when the money sued for became due. The question to be answered is as to when the money becomes due in a term loan availed and collaterally secured by mortgage, on the date of mortgage or when the whole repayment due.

¶34

l, Moni*do u. Indubolo, [rrrortrd in AIR ]964 sc 1295.l, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held that a suit to enforce a mortgage is govemed by Art. 62 and has to be filed within 12 years from the date when the money became due unless the period of limitation prescribed has been extended under any provision of the Limitation Act.

¶35

¶36

In the case on hand, the last instalment was due on 31.01.2017; 28.02.2017 and 27.01.2021. When there is continuous default, the mortgagee has the option to wait till the last instalment to take as the cause of action and to file a suit for the entire mortgage money. 5.36 of the Act deals with limitation for enforcement of security interest by a secured creditor and it says that no secured creditor shall be entitled to take all or any of the measures under sub-section (a) of S.l3 of the Act, unless his claim in respect of financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. Further question arises for consideration is as to what is the starting point of time for computation of the period of limitation. Going by 5.36 of the Act, a secured creditor has to make its claim in respect of the financial asset within the period of limitation as prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. The definition of .financial asset, as under S.2(l)(l) of the Act takes in a mortgage, charge, hypothecation or pledge of movable property. Therefore, the mortgage also is a financial asset. The claim with respect to the financial asset is being made on the basis of the demand notice issued under 5.13(2) of the Act. So the limitation can only be reckoned from the date on which the asset (money secured by mortgage) became due, which in tum can only be the :::.,,

¶37

sA728t2022

¶38

last instalment was due. Going by the definition of 'debt' as under S.2(1)(ha) of the Act, it includes any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person payable under a mortgage. Therefore, from a combined reading of 5.36 of the Act and the definition clauses of the terms of 'debt' and 'financial asset' along with Art.62 of the Limitation Act,1963, it can safely be concluded that the limitation prescribed under S.36 of the Act, in the case of recovery of money due under a mortgage can only be computed from the date of last instalment and not from the date of creation of mortgage. Computing the period of limitation from the last instalment being taken as '31 .Ol.2Ol7',the period of limitation expires on 3l .01.2029. The property in question is admittedly mortgaged with the bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the I't defendant has lost the remedy of enforcing its security interest over the secured asset within the period of twelve years as provided under Art.62 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The remedy under the Act is the right of the secured creditor to sell the mortgaged property without the intervention of the Court or the Tribunal for recovery of its secured debt. In the present case, the 2nd defendant bank declared the accounts as non-performing assets on 31.03.2018 and invoked the provisions under the Act and commenced the proceedings for enforcement of its security interest over the secured assets by issuing a demand notice dated 20.06.201g under S.13(2) of the Act. Thus, the 2"d defendant bank had initiated proceedings under the Act well before the expiry date of limitation. In the facts of this case, this Tribunal is not hesitated to hold that the debt is not time barred under 5.36 of the Act and, therefore, the I't defendant is entitled to proceed under the Act.

¶39

¶40

It is also the contention of the applicants that the account has been classified as non-performing asset illegally and against the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. According to the l't defendant, the applicants availed loans from the 2nd defendant bank on duly executing the necessary loan security documents on 31.01.2007 and creating equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds on 31.03.2007 in

¶41

sA728t2022

¶42

respect of the schedule immovable properties in its favour. It is submitted by the l't defendant that as the applicants failed to make repayment of the instalments in time, the account was classified as non-performing asset by the 2nd defendant bank. Admittedly, the applicants are the borrowers of financial assistances originally availed from the 2nd defendant bank on duly executing the loan security documents and creating equitable mortgage over the secured assets including the schedule immovable property in its favour. At the request of the applicants, the 2nd defendant bank, vide Annexures 87 and B8 credit sanction intimations granted the additional loans mentioned therein. The applicants availed the original loan of t90 lakhs duly executing the loan security documents including Annexure B6 term loan agreement. The applicants have no case that at any point of time even after issuance of Annexure Bl demand notice they had regularised the accounts by paying off the irregular portion of interest and the principal portion under such loans. They have no case that the operation ofthe accounts was not irregular as on 31.03.2018 when the accounts were classified as non-performing assets. The applicants have no case that they had strictly complied with the terms and conditions of the sanction. They have also no case that they had responded to Annexure B I and 82 notices and had regularised the accounts. As per the definition under clause O in S.2 of the Act, default means non-payment of any debt and as per clause (o) non-performing asset means an asset or account of a borrower which has been classified by a bank or financial institution as sub-standard, doubtful or loss asset, and they read as below:-

¶43

"(j) default means-

¶44

(i) non-payment of any debt or any other amount payable by the boruower to any secured creditor consequent uponwhich the account of such borrower is classified as non-performing asset in the books of account ofthe secured creditor; or

¶45

(ii) non-payment of any debt or any other amount payable by the boruower with respect tort debt securities after notice of ninety days demanding payment of dues served upon such borrower by the debenture trustee or any other authority in whose favour security interest is created for the bene.fit of holders ofthe such debt securities.

¶46

¶47

(o) non-performing asset means an asset or qccount of a borrower, which has been classified by a bank or/inancial institution as sub-standard, doubtful or loss asset,-

¶48

sA728t2022

¶49

(a) in case such bank or financial institution is administered or regulated by any authority or body established, constituted or appointed by any law for the time being in fore, in accordance wirh the directions or guidelines relating to assets classifications issued by such authority or body; (b) in any other case, in accordance with the directions or guidelines relating to assets classifications issued by the Reserve Bank."

¶50

As per the explanation given in the Act, the word 'non-performing asset' is a colourable substitute for 'bad debt' about which there is no reasonable expectation of recovery. The Reserve Bank of India's prudential norns on asset classification defines a 'non-performing asset as 'a credit facility in respect of which the interest and or instalment of principal has remained past due' for a specified period of time. An asset, including a leased asset, becomes non-performing asset when it ceases to generate income for a bank. Any amount due to bank under any credit facility is 'overdue, if it is not paid on the due date fixed by the bank. The applicants have no case that these facts are not applicable to their accounts in question. Therefore, there is no lawful point in contending that the accounts had not become non-performing assets and the 2nd defendant bank had declared the accounts as non-performing assets contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

¶51

¶52

Yet another contention raised by the applicants is that no demand notice has been issued to these applicants. It is specifically contended by them that the demand, possession and sale notices have not been properly issued. It is also stated by them that the possession notice has been signed by the person in his dual capacities as Chief Manager and authorised officer. According to the I't defendant, after declaring the accounts as non-performing assets, the 2"d defendant issued demand notice dated 20-06.2018 and 11.05.2018, which has been duly served and as the applicants failed to discharge the debt due within sixty days from the date of receipt of the demand notice, the 2"d defendant took possession of the secured assets. According to the I't defendant, in the meantime, the secured asset was transferred to this defendant by the 2nd defendant

¶53

¶54

sA728t2022

¶55

bank and thereafter, the I't defendant issued sale notice dated 23.09.2022 for sale of the secured assets fixing its reserve price at {258 lakhs.

¶56

The core issue relating to the SA is the service of notices in terms of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The applicants are aggrieved by the infirmity occurred in such service only. S.l3 of the Act deals with enforcement of security interest and sub-sections (2) and (3) thereto specifies the mode of requirement by the secured creditor to the borrower by notice in writing to discharge the debt due, and it reads as

¶57

below:-

¶58

"(2) I{here any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security qgreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any instalment thereof and his account in respect ofsuch debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any ofthe rights under sub-section (4):

¶59

PROVIDED that^_

¶60

(, the requirement of classification of secured debt as non-performing asset under this subsection shall not apply to^q borrower who has raisedfunds through issue ofdebt securities; and

¶61

(ii) in the event of default, the debenture trustee shall be entitled to enforce security interest in the same monner as provided under this section with such modifications as may be necessary and in accordance with the terms and conditions of security documents executed in favour of the debenture trustee.

¶62

O^{The notice referredto in sub-section(2)} shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in thi evenr of norpqyment ofsecured debts by the borrower."

¶63

17 . Sub-section (a) of S.l3 of the Act deals with the recourses could be taken

¶64

by the secured creditor in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within

¶65

the specified period in the notice issued under sub-section (2), and it reads thus:-

¶66

"G) ln case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in subsection (2), the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of thefollowing measures to recover his secured debt, namely:-

¶67

(a) take possession ofthe secured assets ofthe borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or salefor realising the secure asset;

¶68

(b) take over the mqnagement of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale for realising the secured asset:

¶69

PROVIDED that the right to transfer by way of lease, assignment or sale shalt be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as securityfor the debt:

¶70

¶71

PROVIDED FURTHER that where the manogement of whole of the business or part of the business is severable, the secured creditor shall take over the mqnagement of such busness o7 the borrower, which is relatable to the security or the debt.

¶72

(c) appoint any person (hereafter refeted to as the manager), to manage the secured assets the possession ofwhich has been taken over by the secured creditor;

¶73

¶74

sA72812022

¶75

(d) require at any time by notice in writing, any person who has acquired any of the secured assetsfrom the borrower andfrom whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower, to pay the secured creditor, so much of the money as is suficient to pay the secured debt. "

¶76

R.3 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (as amended from

¶77

time to time) - for short 'the Rules' lays down the procedure to be followed in taking

¶78

measure under S.l3 of the Act in respect of demand notice, which reads as under:-

¶79

"(l) The service of demand notice as referred to in sub-section (2) of S. l3 of the Act shall be mode by delivering (including hand delivery) or transmitting at the place where ihe borrower or his agent, empowered to accePt the notice or documents on behalf of the borrower, actually and voluntarily residis or carries on business or personally worl<s for gain, by registered post with acknowledgement due, addressed to the borrower or his agent empowered to qccept the service or by speed post oi by courier or by any other means of transmission of documents like.fm messqge or electronic mail seryice:

¶80

PROVIDED that where authorised fficer has reoson to believe that the borrower or his agent is avoiding the service ofthe notice or thatfor any other reason, the service cannot be made as aforesiid, the service shall be effected by ffixing a copy of the demand notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house or building in which the borrower or his agent ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and also by publishing the conients of the dimand notice in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language, having sfficient circulation ii that locality.

¶81

(2) Where the borrower is a body corporate, the demand notice shall be served on the registered ffice^{or any of the branches of} such body corporate as specified under sub-rule( I ).

¶82

(3) Any other notice in writing to be served on the borrower or his agent by authorised oficer, shall be served in the same mqnner as provide in this rule.

¶83

(4) l(here there are more than one boruower, the demand notice shall be served on each borrower.

¶84

(5) The demand notice may invite attention of the borrower to provisions of sub-section (S) of S. I 3 of the Act, in respect of time available to the borrower, to redeem the secured assets. "

¶85

Sub-rules (l) and (2) of R.8 of the Rules deals with the mode of delivering

¶86

the possession notice and it reads thus:-

¶87

"(l) Where the secured qsset is an immovable property, the authorised fficer shall take or cause to be taken possession, by delivering a possession notice prepored as nearly as pissible in Appendix-lV to these rules, to the borrower and by affaing the possession notice on the ouler door or at suc'h conspicuous place ofthe property.

¶88

(2) The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (l) shall also be published, as soon as possible but in any case not later lhan seven days from the date of toking possession, in nuo leading newspapers, one in vernacular language having stfficient circulation in that locality, by the authorised oficer.

¶89

(2A) All notices under these rules may also be served upon the borrower through electronic mode of service, in addition to the modes prescribed under sub-rule ( I ) and sub-rule (2) of ruli 8. "

¶90

Annexure Bl is the demand notice dated 20.06.2018 issued under S.l3(2)

¶91

of the Act by the authorised officer of the 2nd defendant bank addressed to the I't

¶92

¶93

applicant and others calling upon them to discharge the debt amounting to the sum of <7,09,89,158.82 as on 19.06.2018 within sixty days from the date of receipt of such

¶94

¶95

sA728t2022

¶96

notice. It was stated therein that on account of the failure to^{repay the duesas is required,} the bank in terms of the Reserve Bank of India^guidelines as to the^{income recognition} and prudential accounting norms classified the accounts^{mentioned thereinas non-} performing assets on 31.03.2018. The attention of the borrowers was invited therein to the provision under sub-section⁽⁸⁾ of S.l3 of the Act in^respect of the time^for redemption of the secured assets. Annexure 81 notice takes care of the details of the amount payable by the borrowers; the details of security documents executed and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of^non- payment of the secured debt by the borrowers by way of schedule therein. The photocopies of the speed post acknowledgement receipts appended to Annexure Bl notice show that the said notice was received by the 1't applicant on22.06.2018.

¶97

However, no demand notice under S.l3(2) of the Act is seen issued to the 2nd applicant in respect of the loans availed by it. Though the l't defendant in^his statement of objection has referred to a demand notice dated^{I1.05.2018 no such noticeis} produced before this Tribunal. Going by the statement of objection of the I't defendant, though the 2"d defendant bank claimed to have issued demand^{notice amountingto a total} sum of <25,22,44,595/-, Annexure Bl demand^{notice dated 20.06.2018doesnot takein} the sum of 712,23,86,1901- due under term loan account^{No.1407001629027601and the} sum of <5,88,69,248/- due under term loan account^{No.1407001629051401.}

¶98

In the above circumstances, the I't applicant is deemed to^be served^by AnnexureBl demandnotice. Annexure 82 is the^{possessionnotice dated17.09.2018} issued to the I't applicant and others by the authorised officer of^{the 2nd defendant bank} under S.13(4) of the Act taking^possession of^{the secured assets in respect of the loans} availed by him. The photocopies of the^postal receipts appended^{to AnnexureB2 shows} that the same was sent to the I't applicant by^{registered post on24.09.2018.But the}

¶99

thereto shows that a copy of the same was^{receivedpersonally by the wife} :::"*.-.nt

¶100

sA728t2022

¶101

¶102

of the I't applicant on l7.Og.2Ol8. The photocopies of the extracts of the publication of Annexure 82 appended thereto shows that the same was published in English and Kannada dailies, but the date of publication could not be inferred from them as only a piece of paper is produced. Therefore, the Tribunal is not in a position to ascertain as to whether Annexure 82 possession notice was published within the stipulated time as referred to in sub-rule (2) of R.8 of the Rules. No proof in respect of the possession taken by affixing Annexure 82 possession notice on the outer door or at such conspicuous place of the property has been produced before this Tribunal as mandated under sub-rule (1) of R.8 of the Rules. No possession notice is claimed to have been issued to the 2nd applicant in respect of the loans availed by it. However, Annexure 45 is a copy of the possession notice dated 17.09.2018 issued by the 2nd defendant bank to the 2,d applicant and others in respect of the financial assistances availed by it and taking possession of the secured assets relating thereto.

¶103

Undisputedly, the I't applicant failed to discharge the debt due to the 2,d defendant bank in response to Annexure Bl notice and the action of taking possession by way of Annexure 82 was taken evidently on the expiry of sixty days from 22.06.201g. From the above, it is clear that the 2nd defendant bank intended to proceed only against the secured assets relating to the financial assistance granted to the I't applicant only for recovery of the secured debt due from him. But the measures taken under sub-section (4) of S.13 of the Act pursuant to the issuance of Annexure B1 notice was in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

¶104

¶105

If the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period as specified in sub-section (2) of S.l3 of the Act, the secured creditor is entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures including sale of the secured asset as specified in sub-section (a) of S.l3 of the Act to recover his secured debt. Once possession of the asset is taken, the authorised officer or the secured creditor has to follow the :_:::-a

¶106

sA728t2022

¶107

¶108

guidelines as prescribed under Rr.8 & 9 of the Rules in sale of immovable secured assets.

¶109

The relevant provisions commence from sub-rule (5) of R.8 of the Rules. The relevant

¶110

provisions read as below:-

¶111

"(5) Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-rule (l) of rule 9, the authorised oficer shall obtain valuation of the property.from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of thefollowing methods:-

¶112

(a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets or otherwise interested in buying the such assets; or

¶113

(b) by inviting tenders from the public;

¶114

¶115

(d) by private treaty:

¶116

PROVIDED that in case of sale of immovable property in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Transfer of Property Act, 1977 shall apply to the person who acquires such property in the State.

¶117

(6) The authorised fficer shall serve to the borrower a notice of thirty days for sale of the immovable secured assets, under sub-rule (5):

¶118

PROVIDED that if the sale of such secured asset is being effected by either inviting tenders from^{the public or by holdingpublic auction,the} secured creditors shall cause a public notice iitheform given in Appendix IV'A to be published in two leading newspqpers including one in vernocular lan[uage having wide circulation in the locality.

¶119

(7) Every notice of sale shall be affrxed on the conspicuous part of the immovable property and the authorised fficer shall upload the detailed terms and conditions of the sale, on the web-iite'of the secured creditor, which shall include-

¶120

(a) the description of the immovable property to be sold, including the details of the encumbrances known to the secured creditor;

¶121

(b) the secured debtfor recovery ofwhich the property is to be sold;

¶122

¶123

(d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed;

¶124

(e) deposit ofearnest money as mqy be stipulated by the secured creditor;

¶125

A^{any other terms andconditions,which the} authorised oficer considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nature andvalue ofthe property.

¶126

(8) Sale by any method other than public auction or public tender, shall be on such terms as may be settled between the secured creditor and the proposed purchaser inwriting. 9. Time of sale, issue of sale sale, issue of sale issue of sale of sale sale certificate and delivery of possession, possession, etc.

¶127

Time of sale, issue of sale sale, issue of sale issue of sale of sale sale certificate and delivery of possession, possession, etc.

¶128

(l) No sale of immovable property under these rules, in first instance shall toke place before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the public notice of sale is published in newspapers as referred to in the proviso to sub-rule (6) or rule I or notice ofsale has been served to the borrower:

¶129

PROVIDED FURTHER thot if sale of immovable property by any one of the methods specified by sub-rule (5) of rule 8 fails and sale is required to be conducted again, the authorised officer shall serve, afftx and publish notice of sale of not less thanfifteen days to the borrower, for any subsequent sale.

¶130

(2) The sale shall be confirmed infovour ofthe purchaser who has offered the highest sale price in his bid or tender or quotation or offer to the quthorised fficer and shall be subject to confirmation by the secured creditor:

¶131

PROVIDED that no sale under this rule shall be confirmed, if the amount offered by sale price is ,:::*, the resertte price, specified under sub-rule (5) of rule 8;

¶132

sA728/2022

¶133

¶134

PROVIDED FURTHER that if the authorised officer.fails to obtain a price higher than the reserye price, he may, with the consent of the borrower and the secured creditor effect the sale at such price.

¶135

(3) On every sale of immovable properly, the purchaser shall immediately, i.e on the same doy or not later than nextworking day, as the case may be, pay a deposit of nventy-five per cent of the amount of the sale price, which is inclusive of earnest money deposited, if any, to the authorised oficer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property shall be sold again.

¶136

(4) The balance amount of purchase price poyable shall be paid by the purchaser to the authorised fficer on or before thefifteenth day of confirmation of sole of the immovable property or such extended period as may be agreed upon in writing between the purchaser qnd the secured creditor, in any case not exceeding three months.

¶137

(5) ln default of payment within the period mentioned in sub-rule (4), the deposil shall be forfeited^{to the secured creditorand the propertyshall} be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit qll cloims to the property or to any pqrt of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold.

¶138

(6) On confirmation of sale by the secured creditor and if the terms of payment have been complied with, the authorised fficer exercising the power of sale shqll issue a certificate of sale of the immovable property infavour of the purchaser in theform given in Appendix V to these rules.

¶139

(7) Where the immovable property sold is subject to qny encumbrances, the authorised oficer mqy, f he thinks fit, allow the purchaser to deposit with him the money required to dischar[i the encumbrances and any interest due thereon together with such additional amount that may be sffic7eil b meet the contingencies orfurther cost, expenses and interest as mqy be determined by him:

¶140

PROVIDED that if after meeting the cost of removing encumbrances and contingencies there is any surplus ovailable out of the money deposited by the purchaser such surplus shall-be paid to the purchaserwithinfifteen daysfrom the date ofinalisation of the sale.

¶141

(8) On such deposit of money for discharge of the encumbrances, the authorised fficer shall issue or cause the purchaser to issue notices to the person interested in or entitled to the moniy deposited with him and take steps to make the payment accordingly.

¶142

(9) The authorised fficer shall deliver the property to the purchaser free from encumbrances known to the secured creditor on deposit of money as specified in sub-rule (7) aboie.

¶143

(10) The certificate of sale issued under sub-rule (6) shatl specifically mention that whether the purchaser has purchased the immovable secured asset free from an), encumbrances known lo the secured creditor or not."

¶144

Annexure 84 is a copy of the sale notice dated 23.09.2022 issued by the I't defendant authorised officer of ARCIL bringing only the schedule immovable property for sale (among the other secured assets) for recovery of debt due from the l't applicant and others in respect of the loans availed by them, though the notice is addressed to the 2nd applicant also. Though the reserve price is fixed at {258 lakhs no pleading regarding valuation of the same is given in the statement of objection. However, the applicants have contended that no proper valuation ofthe secured asset had been done and the valuation done was not intimated to them and that the reserve price was fixed not in consultation with them. It is also their contention that the reserve price is too low

¶145

¶146

compared to the market value. It can only be presumed that the l't defendant had obtained :":aluation^{of the scheduleimmovableproperty from an approved valuer andin}

¶147

¶148

sA728t2022

¶149

consultation with the secured creditor^{onlyhad fixedthe reserveprice of the same. It may} be noted that the^provisions of^{the Act andthe Rules made thereunderdo not call for} intimation of reserve^price fixed by^{the authorisedofficerof the secured creditor to the} borrowers by a separate^{notice other thanthe sale notice. The borrowersneed notbe} heard also in fixing the reserve^{price. Thereis no requirementof the creditor to consider} the alternative valuation^{fumished by the borrowers also. It may be pertinent to be} mentioned here that a^{property may not fetch a valueequivalent to the market valuein a} forced sale in operation of^{law. Annexure 84 containsa detailed terms and conditions of} the sale including the^{description of the immovable property to be sold; the secured debt} for recovery of which^{the property is to be sold; reserve price of the immovablesecured} assets below which the^{property may not be sold;date and time of e-publicauction or the} time after which sale by^{any other mode shall be completed and the deposit of earnest} money as may be stipulated^{by the secured creditor.}

¶150

The copies of^{postalacknowledgementcards appended to Annexure84} shows that the sale notice^{was receivedby the I't applicanton 24.09.2022. The} photocopies of extracts of^{publicationsof Annexure84 appended thereto showsthat it} was published in English^{and Kannada dailies dated 24.09.2022.No affixture as referred} to in sub-rule⁽⁷⁾ of^{R.8of the Rules also not furnished.}

¶151

It is also^{the contentionof the applicants that since there is no security} agreement is created^{thereis no security interestis created in favourof the defendants. It} may be noted that^{the l't applicantby way of Annexure A1 (Annexure 85) memorandum} of deposit of title^{deeds executed in favour of the 2nd defendantbank hadcreated} equitable mortgage^{over the scheduleimmovable propertyas he had deposited Annexure} B9 sale deed with it.^{Therefore, there is a valid equitable mortgage.The securedcreditor} is entitled to enforce^{its security interest over the securedasset.}

sA728t2022

It is also the contention of the applicants that the security interest created on the secured asset is not registered with CERSAI and hence the l't defendant is not entitled to enforce its security interest over its secured asset. The I't defendant bank in its statement of objection has not mentioned anything about CERSAI registration. On the showing of the applicants itself, as per Annexure A1, the mortgage was created on 3r.01.2007.

¶156

¶157

The Central Registry under Chapter IV of the Act is defined as the Registry set up or caused to be set up under 5.20(1) of the Act by the Central Government vide notification No.GSR^277(E) dated^{31.03.2011 for the purposesof} registration of transaction of securitisation and reconstruction of^f,rnancial assets^and creation of security interest under the Act. Any^{provisionsof the} Act^{specifiedin 5.20(4)} or any other law requiring registration of^{changesare in additionto the registration with} the Central Registry. The Central Govemment^{vide the Enforcement of Security Interest} and Recovery of Debts Laws and^{MiscellaneousProvisions (Amendment)Act, 2016 rlw} the notification No.SO 4619(E) dated26.12.2019^{inserted ChapterIV A} [Registration^by secured creditors and other creditors^{- Ss.26B} to^{26E) applicable with effect from} 24.01.2020. Sub-section⁽²⁾ to 5.268^{says thatfromthe date of notificationunder sub-} section (l), any creditor including^{the secured creditor mayfile particulars of transactions} of creation, modification or^{satisfactionof any security interestwith the Central Registry} in such form and manner as^{may be prescribed. Sub-section(3) thereofsays that a} creditor other than the secured^{creditorhling particulars of transactionsof creation,} modification and satisfaction^{of security interest over propertiescreatedin its favour shall} not be entitled to exercise any^right of^{enforcementof securities underthis Act. In sub-} section 26D under the^{head 'right of enforcementof securities',it is specificallystated} that notwithstanding anything^{containedin any other law for the time beingin force, from} the date of commencement of^{the provisions of this Chapter,no securedcreditorshallbe}

¶158

¶159

sA728t2022

¶160

entitled to exercise the rights of enforcement of securities under Chapter III unless the security interest created in its favour by the borrower has been registered with the Central Registry. The accounts relating to the loans in respect of the l't applicant were declared as non-performing assets on 31.03.2018 and the I't defendant vide Annexure Bl has shown that the demand notice under 3.13(2) of the Act had been issued as early as on 20.06.2018 and vide Annexure 82 that the possession notice under S.l3(4) of the Act had been issued on 17.09.2018.

¶161

¶162

It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd ad Another v. R.K Shewaramani [reported in Q005.) 6 SCC^76J that amended rule could operate only from the date of the amendment and that^{the rule cannot} be impugned on ground that it has retrospective effect. The Hon'ble High Court of^Kerala in K.R Ramesh v Central Bureau o-f Investigation [reported in 2020⁽³⁾ KIJ 693 :²⁰²⁰ ICO 756J has held that every statute dealing with a substantive right is^{prima facie} prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation; that it is also equally true that an express^{provisionshould be madeto make a} statute retrospective and the^presumption against^{retrospectivitymay be rebutted by} necessary implication and that^generally all amendment of^{substantivenatureare} prospective, unless the Amendment Act discloses expressly or by necessary^implicationa different intention. It may be noted that the Central Government^{vide the Enforcementof} Security Interest and Recovery of^{Debts Laws andMiscellaneousProvisions (Amdt) Act,} 2016 rlw the notification No.SO^{4619(E) dated 26.122019inserted ChapterIV A} [Registration^{by secured creditorsandother creditors - Ss.26Bto 268] applicable with} effect from 24.01 .2020 only^{whereasthe originalcause of actionto file the SA had arisen} on 30.10.2018. Notwithstanding^{anything containedin this Act, admittedly thereis a} mortgage created over the secured^{asset underthe provisions of the Transferof Properties}

¶163

¶164

sA728/2022

¶165

Act, 1882. Therefore, the CERSAI registration cannot be made mandatory to the facts of this case.

¶166

Another contention raised by the applicants was that the l't defendant has no^jurisdiction to invoke the provisions under the Act. The I't defendant in its statement of objection has submiued that it is an asset reconstruction company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it acquired the financial assets of the applicants from the 2'd defendant bank under S.5 of the Act.

¶167

S.5 of the Act deals with acquisition of rights or interest in financial assets. As per sub-section (l) of S.5 of the Act any asset reconstruction company may acquire financial assets of any bank or financial institution. As per sub-section (a) of S.5 of the Act, if on the date of acquisition of financial asset under sub-section (l) any suit, appeal or other proceeding of whatever nature relating to the said financial asset is pending by or against the originator, the same shall be continued, prosecuted and enforced by or against the asset reconstruction company. Therefore, ARCIL has stepped into the shoes of the 2nd defendant bank. The other contentions regarding exorbitant interest, penal interest etc do not come under the purview of this Tribunal as this Tribunal is not having any adjudicatory power under the Act except to examine the measures taken by the secured creditor are in accordance with the law or not.

¶168

¶169

Before parting with the order it may also be clarified about the dual capacity alleged. The applicants have contended that the possession notice has been signed in dual capacity. The definition of 'authorised officer' under R.2(a) of the Rules takes in an officer not less than the rank of a Chief Manager of a public sector bank or equivalent, as specified by the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of the secured creditor or any other person or authority exercising powers of superintendence, direction and control of the business or affairs of the secured creditor, as the case may be, to the rights of a secured creditor. Therefore, the 'authorised officer' does not lose :j:-r.tr.

¶170

sA728t2022

¶171

¶172

the character of Chief Manager. The delegated power is in addition to the official designation. The same person is exercising the charge of Chief Manager whereas at the same time he is carrying on his delegated charge also. There is no such post as 'authorised officer' in any bank or financial institution, which is only a persona designata granted to an officer not below the rank of a Chief Manager. Therefore, he is entitled to use both the designations.

¶173

¶174

As a net result of the discussion as above, it may be noted that on the showing of the l't defendant itself the schedule immovable^property is a common mortgage for the loans availed by the l't applicant as well as the 2nd applicant, whereas the proceedings have been commenced by invoking the^provisions under the Act as against the 1't applicant only. The 2nd applicant being^{a private} limited company^it enjoins the character of a separate legal entity though it is represented by the I't^{applicant in the} capacity of Managing Director. On the showing of the l't defendant itself,^separate financial assistances have been availed by the applicants^{thoughthe financialassetis} common. The proceedings commenced with the issue of a^{demandnotice under S.13(2)} of the Act. No demand notice is seen issued to the^{2nd applicant whereasthe l't defendant} is enforcing its security interest over the same common secured^{asset without informing} all parties related thereto. Even Annexure B4 sale^{noticehas been addressed to the l't and} 2nd applicants but shown as served to the l't^{applicantonly. Whentwo or more mortgages} have been created on the silme secured^{asset for different financialassistances availedby} different borrowers, it is imperative that^{the mandatory notices referredto in the Act} should be served to all the borrowers^{in respect of} all^{the financial assistancesrelated to} the same secured asset meticulously^{in accordancewiththe provisions of the Rules made} thereunder, if the secured creditor^{is intendingto enforceits security interest over the said} secured asset even if for recovery of^one of^{the secured debtsonly.The2nd applicant} really comes in the definition of^{an 'aggrievedperson' as the 1't applicant has mortgaged}

¶175

¶176

sA728t2022

¶177

the property for the 2nd applicant also. The Tribunal cannot find out from the documents produced by either side as to the schedule immovable property is a common mortgage for the loans availed by both the applicants. Annexure A5 possession notice dated 11.09.2018 issued by the 2nd defendant bank to the 2nd applicant and others in respect of the financial assistances availed by it shows that the schedule immovable property also is a secured asset for such financial assistances. However, the l't defendant in paragraph 17 of the statement of objection has stated as follows:-

¶178

"lt is wrong to suggest that Arl/s Dewar Power has not mortgaged the schedule properties to the respondents. The l" applicant has given common collaterals for the 2'd applicant^{which is the company} fu[/s Dewar Power Ltd, owned by the l" applicant."

¶179

Clause (0 of S.2(1) of the Act defines borrower as any^{personwho has} been granted a financial assistance by any bank or^{financial institution or whohas given} any guarantee or created any mortgage or^{pledgeas security for financialassistance} granted by any bank or financial institution and^{includes a person who becomes a} borrower of securitisation company or^{reconstructioncompany consequentupon} acquisition by it of any rights^{or interestof any bankor financial institution in relation to} such financial assistance or^{whohas raised fundsthrough a debt securities. Thus,the} definition of 'borrower'^{is quite exhaustivewhich takes in not only the principal} borrower but also the^{guarantor and mortgagor also. If the ltt applicant had mortgaged} the same schedule^{immovable propertyas collateral securityfor due repaymentof the} loans availed by the^{2"d applicant also from the 2nd defendant bank,the 2nd applicant} acquires the rank of^{borrower.Withoutissuing a demandnoticeto the borrower giving} him sixty days' time^{to dischargethe debta securedcreditorcannot enforceits security} interest. tn this case,^{the schedule immovable property being commonsecured asset for} the loans separately^{availed by the l't and2nd applicantsas borrowers, the demandnotice} was issued only to^{the I't applicant as per the evidences adducedin this case. Also, the} mandatory affixture of^{possession notice has not been done as againstthe l't applicant}

¶180

sA728t2022

¶181

¶182

itself. The sale notice does not take in the borrowers of the financial assistance availed by the 2nd applicant, which has not been duly served to them also. In the above circumstances and in view of the discussion as above, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences^produced by both sides, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that the measures taken by the l't defendant under sub-section (a) of S.l3 of the Act are not in accordance with the provisions under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The 1't defendant is entitled to commence the proceedings to enforce its security interest over the schedule immovable property after duly issuing the notice under S.13(2) of the Act to the 2nd applicant and also issuing the possession notice issued under S.l3(4) to the I't applicat afresh in accordance with law followed by duly serving the sale notice in accordance with the Rules. It was stated by the I't defendant in the statement of objection that e-auction of the schedule immovable property was conducted on 28.10.2022 and the same was sold to the auction purchaser for {4 crores. Hence, the sale so conducted is set aside. Restore possession within seven days from today.

¶183

In the result, IA Nos. 291312022, 291412022, 71512023, 301012022, 324912022,301112022 and 325012022 are closed and SA 72812022 is allowed with the following declarations/directions : -

¶184

(i) this Tribunal declares that the recourses and measures taken by the l't defendant under S.l3 of the Act are invalid and thus set aside;

¶185

(iD the I't defendant is directed to restore the possession of the schedule immovable property to the borrower or the mortgagor, as the case may be, within seven days from today;

¶186

(iii) ARCIL shall reverse all costs, charges and expenses incurred by it or any expenses incidental thereto in connection with the impugned action taken against the borrowers under the provisions of S.13 of the Act and shall not claim^{themas legally} recoverable debt by operation of law;

¶187

sA728t2022

¶188

¶189

(iv) the l't defendant is granted liberty to invoke the provisions under the Act for enforcement of security interest over the schedule immovable^property afreshⁱⁿ accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder^{meticulously;}

¶190

(v) the parties shall suffer their respective costs.

¶191

Communicate copy of this final order to both^{parties as providedin sub-}

¶192

section (7) of S.17 of the Act r/w^{R.16 of the Debs RecoveryTribunal (Procedure) Rules,}

¶193

1993 (as amended from time to time).

¶194

[Dictated^{to my PAdirlctlyon the computer, correctedandpronounced by me in the openTribunalonthis rhe ,{} <sup>' day ofSeptember, 202j1

¶195

'',en' t^IMTIAZ\A.LI l PRESIDING OFFICER

¶196

Appendix to sA 72812022

APPENDIX

Aqplicant's Exhibits

Nil

Witnessforthe	applicant	Nil
Witnessfordef	endant	Nil
ExhibitNo.	Date	Particularsofdocuments
Annexure-A	l31.01.2007	Photocopyofmemorandumofdepositoftitledeeds executedby theI'tapplicantinfavourofthe2nddefendant bank
Annexure-A	217.09.2018	Photocopyofpossession noticeissuedbythe2nddefendant bankinrespectofthesecured assetsforrecoveryofthe amountsdueunder the loans availed bytheI'tapplicant
Annexurer\3	17.09.2018	Photocopyofextractofthepossessionnotice published in Englishdaily
Annexure,A.	424.09.2022	Photocopyoftheextractofthe publicationofsale notice publishedin English daily
Annexure,A'	17.09.2018	Photocopyofpossessionnoticeissuedbythe2nddefendant bankasagainstthe2ndapplicant
Annexure4'6	11.09.2018	Photocopyoftheextractofthe publicationofpossession noticemadeinEnglishdaily
AnnexureA7	01.10.2022	Photocopyoflegal noticeissuedbythe applicantstotheI't defendant Defendant'sExhibits
Annexure-Bl	20.06.2018	PhotocopyofdemandnoticeissuedunderS.13(2)ofthe Actby the2nddefendant bankto theI'tapplicantand others inrespectoftheloans availedbytheI'tapplicant(along withcopyofpostal acknowledgementcards)
Annexure-B2	17.09.2018	Photocopyofpossessionnoticeissuedbythe2nddefendant bankinrespectofthesecuredassetsrelatingtotheloan availedby thel'tapplicant(alongwithphotocopiesof extractsof publication)
Annexure-B3 Annexure84	23.09.2022	Statementofaccountofsummaryduesason2l.11.2022 Copyofsalenoticeforauctionsaleofscheduleimmovable property(alongwithcopyofpostal acknowledgementcards andcopyofextractof publications)
Annexure85	3r.01.2007	Copyofmemorandumofdepositoftitledeeds executedby theI^$applicantin favour ofthe2nddefendant bank
Annexure86	31.01.2007	Photocopyofterm loanagreement executedby thel't applicantin favourofthe2nddefendant bank
Annexure87	r5.04.2013	Copyofcreditsanctionintimationbearing.reference No.MDSLCFD612013-14issuedbythe^{2no defendant} bankaddressedtothe 2"dapplicant advisingitsanctionof termloanof1600 lakhs,whichwascountersignedby it representedby its Directorintokenofhavingaccepted the termsandconditions therein

¶203

Appendix toSA728l2022

¶204

¶205

¶206

AnnexureB8	25.03.2016	Photocopyofcreditsanctionintimation No.GMS/CRA/001/171312015-16/25-03 defendant banktotheI'tapplicant advisi overdraftlimit oft750lakhs and bank t950lakhs	bearingreference issuedbythe2nd nghimsanctionof guaranteelimit of
Annexure89	18.01.2007	Photocopyofthesale deedNo.4427
		PRESIDI	<br>o.I'? <sup>r1'' NG OFFICER

¶207

Scheduleto 5A72812022 ,i

¶208

¶209

_^Site No.65, n€w N^ 1^ hy* _ sadashivan**:rx;'H:.:"'ss^{- 1 03 -24,} r,t Mainro;rd, ower patce orcharrro t.99, Aramanenagar Range, ,*_r;#: ,;;:j,r,

¶210

*^e''t PRESIDING OFFICER

¶211

¶212

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBL|NAL^. I, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶213

PRESENT: SRI IMTI AZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

¶214

Dated the $h day of September ,2023 \ SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 728 OB 2022

¶215

Between

¶216

S.M Anand, S/o Somashekhar Marakala, Santhrupthi, Kodi Kanyana, (via) Sasthana, Udupi, Kamataka - 576226 and another.

¶217

...Applicants

¶218

And

¶219

The authorised officer, Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd (ARCIL), Unit No.3, 3'd Floor, Vishista Arcade, No.2243,23'd Cross, BSK 2nd Stage, Bangalore, Kamataka - 560070 and another.

¶220

Defendants

¶221

FINAL ORDER

¶222

),,

Sri S M Anand v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S M Anand v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Dibya Jyoti Hazarika

Icici Bank Limited versus Jitendra Kumar

Ms Shree Shanti Paver Blocks versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Jai Laxmi Mini Modern Rice Mills

Idbi Bank versus Shri Mauhar Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh Harjit Singh @ Harjeet Singh