{"id":262882,"date":"2022-03-01T16:00:36","date_gmt":"2022-03-01T10:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=262882"},"modified":"2022-03-04T08:28:14","modified_gmt":"2022-03-04T02:58:14","slug":"borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Borrower\u2019s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>The Division Bench of M. R. Shah*<\/strong> and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., held that \u00a0the entire liability outstanding against the borrower could not be discharged on making the payment i.e. Rs.65.65 lakhs against the total dues Rs.1,85,37,218.80 and that the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in directing to release the mortgaged property\/secured property and to handover the possession along with the original title deeds to the borrower on payment of a total sum of Rs.65.65 lakhs only.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The appellant bank had granted term loan of Rs.100 lakhs and cash credit limit of Rs.95 lakhs to the respondent\u2013borrower against the security of two mortgaged properties namely; an industrial plot measuring 500 Sq.Mtrs. and a residential\/housing property measuring 198 Sq.Mtrs. That the borrower failed to repay the term loan and his account became NPA. A notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was served upon the borrower demanding a sum of Rs.1,85,37,218.80. Later on, the bank took possession of the residential house and issued a sale notice by public auction for the same for the reserve price was fixed at Rs.48.65 lakhs.<\/p>\n

Findings of DRT and DRAT<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The borrower challenged the auction by filing Securitization Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the DRT. The DRT by an interim order held that if the borrower deposits Rs.48.65 lakhs with the bank on or before 27-01-2014, the bank shall deliver the possession of the secured asset along with the original title deeds of the property in question. The order of the DRT was challenged by the bank before the DRAT (Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal). Observing that the reserve price was Rs.48.65 lakhs which the borrower deposited and the bank had received the bids ranging from Rs. 61.50 lakhs to Rs.71 lakhs and the alleged bidders failed to deposit the earnest money, the DRAT held that when the borrower was ready to purchase the said property for Rs.71 lakhs no fault can be found with the order passed by DRT.<\/p>\n

Impugned Order of the High Court <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

In appeal the Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court set aside both the orders of DRT and DRAT primarily for the reason that the said orders were in contravention of Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. However, by the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court had reversed the judgment and order of the Single Judge and had directed the bank to release the secured property (residential house) on the borrower depositing a further sum of Rs.17 lakhs to the bank and handover the possession along with the title deeds to the borrower.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Observation<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The Court observed that when the auction proceedings were initiated under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act and after the bank took over the possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act as per Subsection (8) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act the secured asset should not be sold and\/or transferred by the secured creditor, where the amount dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by him is tendered by the borrower or debtor to the secured creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice for public auction or inviting quotations or tender from public or private treaty for transfer by way of lease assignment or sale of the secured assets.<\/p>\n

Though as on 07-01-2013 the dues were Rs. 15 Rs.1,85,37,218.80 and without the secured property was sold in a public auction the Division Bench of the High Court had directed to release the mortgaged property and handover the possession along with original title deeds to the borrower on the borrower depositing\/paying a total sum of Rs.65.65 lakhs only.<\/p>\n

Noting that Rs.65.65 lakhs was not the amount realized by selling the mortgaged property in a public auction; it was only a highest bid received and the DRT passed an interim order directing to handover the possession and handover the original title deeds on payment of Rs.48.65 lakhs which was the base price, the Bench observed,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c\u2026the borrower did not deposit and was not ready to deposit the entire amount of dues with secured creditor with all costs, charges and expenses incurred by the secured creditor.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Even as per the Division Bench of the High Court the borrower made an offer to deposit\/pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser and not by way of redeeming the mortgaged property. Therefore, the Bench held that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court directing to release the mortgaged property\/secured property and to handover the possession as well as the original title deeds to the borrower on payment of a total sum of Rs.65.65 lakhs only was contrary to Subsection (8) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act.<\/p>\n

Even otherwise, the Bench opined that on making the payment i.e. Rs.65.65 lakhs against the total dues the entire liability outstanding against the borrower could not be said to have been discharged and the liability of the borrower to pay the balance amount would still continue.<\/p>\n

Findings and Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

In the light of above, the Bench reached to following findings:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The DRT in its interim order was not justified in directing to release the mortgaged property and handover the possession along with the original title deeds to the borrower on payment of Rs.48.65 lakhs only which was the base price\/ reserve price, which the Division Bench of the High Court had increased to Rs.65.65 lakhs on the ground that the highest bid received was Rs.71 lakhs.<\/li>\n
  2. Unless and until the borrower was ready to deposit\/pay the entire amount payable together with all costs and expenses with the secured creditor, the borrower could not be discharged from the entire liability outstanding.<\/li>\n
  3. The Single Judge had rightly set aside the orders passed by the DRT as well as by the DRAT considering Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act. The Division Bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the order passed by the Single Judge.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Consequently, the Bench concluded, since the DRT\u2019s order was an interim order, even if it is set aside the appeal\/application will have to be decided and disposed of on merits and on whatever grounds which may be available to the borrower. However, at the same time the bank cannot be restrained from selling the mortgaged property by holding the public auction and realize the amount and recover the outstanding dues, unless the borrower deposits\/pays the entire amount due and payable along with the costs incurred by the secured creditor as per Section 13(f) of the SARFAESI Act.<\/p>\n

    The impugned judgment and order was quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Single Judge quashing and setting aside the order passed by the DRT and confirmed by the DRAT was hereby restored.<\/p>\n

    [Bank of Baroda v. Karwa Trading Co., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 169<\/b><\/a>, decided on 10-02-2022]<\/p>\n

    \n

    *Judgment by: Justice M. R. Shah<\/strong><\/h4>\n

    Appearance by:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    For the Appellant: Praveena Gautam, Advocate<\/p>\n

    For the Respondent: Christi Jain, Advocate<\/p>\n

    \n

    Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together\u00a0<\/span><\/h4>\n
    \n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., held that \u00a0the entire liability outstanding against the borrower <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":262895,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[2831,3090,41118,44136,31346,4861,36832,45362],"class_list":["post-262882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-Auction","tag-bank","tag-borrower","tag-creditor","tag-debt","tag-drat","tag-residential-property","tag-term-loan"],"yoast_head":"\nBorrower\u2019s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores: SC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Borrower\u2019s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores: SC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., held that \u00a0the entire liability outstanding against the borrower\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-03-01T10:30:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-03-04T02:58:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1331\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/\",\"name\":\"Borrower\u2019s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores: SC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-03-01T10:30:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-03-04T02:58:14+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.jpg\",\"width\":1331,\"height\":888},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Borrower\u2019s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores: SC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Borrower\u2019s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores: SC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Borrower\u2019s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores: SC","og_description":"Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M. R. Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ., held that \u00a0the entire liability outstanding against the borrower","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-03-01T10:30:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-03-04T02:58:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1331,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/","name":"Borrower\u2019s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores: SC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.jpg","datePublished":"2022-03-01T10:30:36+00:00","dateModified":"2022-03-04T02:58:14+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.jpg","width":1331,"height":888},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/03\/01\/borrowers-offer-to-pay-rs-71-lakhs-as-a-purchaser-of-mortgaged-property-will-not-discharge-him-from-entire-outstanding-liability-of-approx-1-8-crores-sc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Borrower\u2019s offer to pay Rs.71 lakhs as a purchaser of mortgaged property will not discharge him from entire outstanding liability of approx 1.8 crores: SC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-94.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":253578,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/02\/borrowers-have-protection-against-arbitrary-disposal-of-properties-mortgaged-to-banks\/","url_meta":{"origin":262882,"position":0},"title":"If Banks have to survive, borrowers must exist and not mere borrowers but productive borrowers: Del HC on whether borrowers have protection against arbitrary disposal of properties mortgaged to banks at low prices? [In-depth Report]","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 2, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., expressed that, The Banks seek collaterals and security to prevent losses to themselves. It is, but reasonable, to expect the Banks such as the respondent, to also respect the right of the borrowers to maximize their profits from the sale of collaterals\/securities by the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":258598,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/16\/one-time-settlement-supreme-court-bank-borrower\/","url_meta":{"origin":262882,"position":1},"title":"No borrower can claim benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme as a right; Can’t encourage dishonest borrowers: SC","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\"If it is held that the borrower can still, as a matter of right, pray for benefit under the OTS Scheme, in that case, it would be giving a premium to a dishonest borrower.\"","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242040,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/09\/ph-hc-no-separate-orders-required-in-the-matter-of-ots-having-become-defunct-for-non-compliance-of-conditions-by-borrowers-bank-becomes-free-to-recover-money-in-accordance-with-law-irrespective-of\/","url_meta":{"origin":262882,"position":2},"title":"P&H HC | No separate orders required in the matter of OTS having become defunct for non-compliance of conditions by borrowers, Bank becomes free to recover money in accordance with law irrespective of OTS; HC reiterates","author":"Editor","date":"January 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Division Bench of Rajan Gupta and Karamjit Singh, JJ., allowed the petition seeking writ of mandamus against the impugned order of District Magistrate whereby the Magistrate refused to restrain the respondent from taking physical possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioner on breach\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":335619,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/11\/20\/financial-loss-caused-to-person-by-mere-advocates-opinion-cannot-be-ground-for-prosecuting-him-chc\/","url_meta":{"origin":262882,"position":3},"title":"Financial loss to a person\/institution by mere Advocate\u2019s opinion cannot be a ground for prosecuting him; intention to defraud and active participation required: Chhattisgarh HC","author":"Arushi","date":"November 20, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The allegation against the petitioner is that being an Advocate, he has given the search report based on which loan was disbursed and later it was found that the loan was disbursed to a person who did not even have property which was mortgaged in his name.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Chhattisgarh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Chhattisgarh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Chhattisgarh-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Chhattisgarh-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Chhattisgarh-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":95211,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/12\/28\/direction-to-pay-85-of-current-value-of-property-along-with-18-interest-for-misplacing-sale-deed-not-proper\/","url_meta":{"origin":262882,"position":4},"title":"Direction to pay 85% of current value of property along with 18% interest for misplacing sale deed, not proper","author":"Saba","date":"December 28, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC):\u00a0While rendering relief to Life Insurance Corporation Housing Finance company, NCDRC set aside the order of U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, vide which LIC Housing Finance was directed to pay 85% of the current value of a property along with interest and punitive damages\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":246003,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/23\/loan-moratorium-case-supreme-court-says-no-to-total-waiver-of-interest-and-extension-of-moratorium-period-but-directs-full-waiver-of-compound-interest\/","url_meta":{"origin":262882,"position":5},"title":"Loan Moratorium Case| Supreme Court says no to total waiver of interest and extension of moratorium period but directs full waiver of compound interest","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"There was no justification shown by the Government to restrict the relief of not charging interest on interest with respect to the loans up to Rs. 2 crores only and that too restricted to only 8 categories.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262882","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=262882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262882\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/262895"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}