Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

November 2008

Secured Creditor is entitled to apply for assistance of Court for taking over actual physical possession from borrower/secured debtor : Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 S. 14.

By Dr. K. Shivaram, Ajay R. Singh, Advocates
Reading Time 2 mins

New Page 1

11 Secured Creditor is entitled to apply for
assistance of Court for taking over actual physical possession from
borrower/secured debtor : Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 S. 14.


On account of the first respondent’s liability under a
security agreement in term of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, proceedings were initiated
by the petitioner u/s.13(2) of the Act. The petitioner, a secured creditor,
took symbolic possession of the property leaving the first respondent in de
facto
physical possession. The property was brought to sale, sale
certificate was also issued in favour of the auction purchaser.

 

It is within the wisdom and freedom of the secured creditor
as to whether in a given case it would, in exercise of authority u/s. 13(4) take
over de jure and de facto possession at one go, or whether it
would let the secured debtor to continue to hold de facto possession
after taking over only de jure possession, by publication in accordance
with the Act and rules, to aid the secured creditor to proceed with the sale
u/s.13. It is not the requirement of S. 13(6) or any other provisions of the Act
that a transfer by a secured creditor after taking over possession would be only
after taking over actual possession, de facto. The right to take
possession u/s.13(4)(a) is provided in such wide terms that it gives fair room
for the secured creditor to decide whether it would first proceed only to take
de jure possession. At any rate, a secured debtor, continuing to hold
de facto
possession on the ground of not having been dispossessed, would
only be one who had been given the advantage to continue to hold on de facto
possession for the time during which different steps would have followed,
resulting in the confirmation of sale in favour of a third party auction
purchaser. In absence of any jurisdictional requirement for de facto
possession to make a transfer in terms of S. 13(6), there is no legal or
jurisdictional error in the sale being held by the secured creditor on the
strength of de jure possession. Such a sale or transfer has the complete
support of S. 13(6).

[ Kottakkal Co-op. Urban Bank v. T. Balakrishnan & Anr., AIR 2008
Kerala 179]

You May Also Like