9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is hence declared that the respondent bank cannot proceed for sale of the properties as per the publication impugned before this Court in the above writ petition and the writ petition would stand allowed leaving open the remedy of the respondent bank to proceed against the defaulter/petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act or any other law in force. If the further proceedings are taken under the SARFAESI Act,then it would have to commence from the consideration of objections and a reply given on that count. - W.P. (C). No. 240 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2017 - K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J. FOR THE PETITIONER : ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE FOR THE RESPONDENT : ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, JUDGMENT The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into only whether the proceedings initiated is proper or not. This Court also need not look into the earlier proceedings and would confine the consideration to the present proceedings issued under the SARFAESI Act. The respondent Bank issued Ext.P14 notice under Section 13(2) on 03.11.2015. The petitioner is said to have filed an objection at Ext. P15 on 03.12.2015. The Bank without considering the objection, proceeded to sell the property as per Ext. P16, publication under Section 13(4). The controversy is in a limited compass as to whether the Bank could have so proceeded, without considering the objection. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank was asked to get specific instructions as to why the objection w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent advanced. The conduct of the defaulter in predating the objection dis-entitles the petitioner from any equitable consideration, urge learned Counsel. 6. This Court has not given any time to the respondent to answer the submission of the respondent Bank that the objection was filed beyond the 60 day period. This is because this Court is of the opinion that the Bank having admitted the receipt of the objections; on law, the contention cannot be upheld. For the moment, we would assume that the Bank received the objection after the 60 days period prescribed. If the Bank had taken the proceedings immediately after the 60 days period or at any time before the objection was placed before it, the contention would have been sound. However in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
