Disposed

Rayees Ul Islam v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

DRT2 Dec 2024SA/247/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application under the SARFAESI Act, the applicant challenged the bank's possession of 13.5 marlas of land mortgaged only for a home loan, not the CC account. The DRT directed the parties to seek demarcation from the concerned Tehsildar.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed with observation that the bank must approach the Tehsildar for demarcation of the disputed land within one month.

Rayees Ul Islam versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

SA/247/2023 RAYEES UL ISLAM Vs JAMMU AND KASHMIR BANK LIMITED

¶3

02.12.2024 Item No.32

¶4

Present: Sh. Sahil Khunger, Counsel for the Applicant. Sh.Vivek Verma, Counsel for respondent bank.

¶5

Rayees Ul Islam and another (Applicants) have filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against the Authorized Officer, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited another (Respondents).

¶6

Admittedly, Rayees Ul Islam and his father Bashir Ahmed had taken a Home Loan of Rs. 18.50 lacs from the respondent bank. To secure the same, Bashir Ahmed had created security interest in respect of 13.5 marlas, in favour of the bank.

¶7

It is also admitted on the record that Bashir Ahmed alongwith his first wife Haleema Bano and one Abdul Rashid had also taken CC Limit and other facilities from the respondent bank. To secure the loan, Bashir Ahmed had created security interest in respect of 19 marlas of the land comprised in khasra No. 1039, khewat No. 232, Khata No.41, in favour of the bank.

¶8

As per bank, the CC account of Bashir Ahmed and Haleema Bano had turned NPA and it initiated the SARFAESI action in respect of the same and also took the possession of the single storey residential house alongwith the land measuring 19 marlas, bearing khasra No. 1039, khewat No. 232, Khata No.41. Counsel for the applicant states that in fact bank has taken possession of 13.5 marlas, which was not mortgaged in the CC account. It was also stated that in fact 13.5 marlas was mortgaged in the Home Loan account and the said account has not been declared NPA. However, bank has taken the possession of 13.5 marlas which was not secured in the CC account.

¶9

I am of the considered view that the only solution of the problem is that parties should move an application before the Tehsildar concerned, who would demarcate the land. In view of this, the present SA stands disposed of with the observation that bank would approach the Tehsildar for demarcation, who would demarcate the land comprised in khasra No.1039 and 1040, within one month from the date a copy of the order is served on him.

¶10

File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

¶11

Pronounced in open court. MANOJ

¶12

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

Rayees Ul Islam v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayees Ul Islam v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Axis Bank versus Sh. Ashish Gupta

Canara Bank versus Kiran Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Prem Swaroop

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Jasmail Singh

Shri Shiv Shankar Educational Charitable Trust versus Indian School Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Mritunjay Kumar versus Reliance Home Finance Ltd.