9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the proceedings initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 has not been questioned and there is accrual of right in favour of respondent No.6 with the registration of valid sale certificate divesting respondent No.1 to 4 of their title over the property in question, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. More particularly when there is no pre existing title in favour of the petitioner. As to direction sought vide paragraph 7(iv), since the District Consumer Forum is a Court of limited jurisdiction conferred under Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. And though it may have a jurisdiction to entertain a complaint about service in relation to immovable property. However, it will be beyond its jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings, was impleaded after his application for intervention was allowed on 04.04.2016. It was his contention that pursuant to the proceedings instituted by respondent-Punjab National Bank under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Act, 2002 (for brevity 'Act of 2002'), he (respondent No.6) purchased the property in question in auction for a consideration of ₹ 3,60,360/-. Sale certificate dated 30.04.2010 was duly registered on 17.06.2010. Whereafter, he (respondent No.6) was placed in possession by the Tehsildar, Panagar, vide order dated 18.08.2011. However, since the possession was forcefully taken by the petitioner, led respondent No.6 to lodge a complaint wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Jabalpur in a proceeding under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and as per the decision by Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, the remedy lies before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. It was held in Satyawati Tondon (supra) that : 42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No.1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression `any person' used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to. The petitioner, if so advised, is at liberty to take recourse to remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. As to the relief sought vide paragraph 7(i) and 7(ii), the material documents on record reveals that the land in question was mortgaged by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent-Punjab National Bank and because respondent No.4 failed to repay the loan, the Bank besides initiating proceedings under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 also took recourse to proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 2002 and auctioned the land in question which was purchased by respondent No.6 in whose favour sale certificate has been executed and duly registered on 17.06.2010 Since the proceedings initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
