Transcore V. Union Of India Case Study
4.2 Simultaneous Proceedings under DRT and SARFAESI -
4.2.1 Transcore Vs Union of India –
Facts-
An Original Application (O.A.) was filed by Indian Overseas Bank (Bank) before the DRT, Chennai for recovery of dues from M/s Transcore (T) and to bring the properties to sell. The claim was disputed. Later on, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued vide which T was called upon to repay the amount due together with interest within sixty days. T failed to repay the amount. The Bank took the possession of the immovable properties and the same became subject to the charge of the Bank.
CONTENTIONS
Transcore:
1. The Bank could not have invoked the SARFAESI Act where the O.A. was already pending under the proviso to Section …show more content…
The petitioner was the highest bidder and his bid was accepted. He deposited the earnest money deposit and made certain payment to bank according to rule 9. After paying initial amount he asked the bank for the inspection of the documents related to the property. After making enquiries regarding the title of the property, he issued a legal notice on July 28, 2009 to the second respondent stating that he had bonafidely participated in the auction sale. But since the respondent did not furnish the original title deeds and other documents, he apprehended that the title might not be proper. Therefore, he decided not to proceed with the …show more content…
Official Liquidator and Others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the official liquidator shall not provide any guarantee and/or warranty in respect of the immovable properties and the purchaser shall not be entitled to claim any compensation or deduction in price on any account whatsoever and shall be deemed to have purchased property subject to all encumbrances, liens and claims including those under the existing legislation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it is for the intending purchaser to satisfy himself in all respect as to the title, encumbrances, and so forth of the immovable property that he proposes to purchase and he cannot after having purchased the property on such terms then claim diminution in the price on the ground of defect in title or description of the
4.2.1 Transcore Vs Union of India –
Facts-
An Original Application (O.A.) was filed by Indian Overseas Bank (Bank) before the DRT, Chennai for recovery of dues from M/s Transcore (T) and to bring the properties to sell. The claim was disputed. Later on, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued vide which T was called upon to repay the amount due together with interest within sixty days. T failed to repay the amount. The Bank took the possession of the immovable properties and the same became subject to the charge of the Bank.
CONTENTIONS
Transcore:
1. The Bank could not have invoked the SARFAESI Act where the O.A. was already pending under the proviso to Section …show more content…
The petitioner was the highest bidder and his bid was accepted. He deposited the earnest money deposit and made certain payment to bank according to rule 9. After paying initial amount he asked the bank for the inspection of the documents related to the property. After making enquiries regarding the title of the property, he issued a legal notice on July 28, 2009 to the second respondent stating that he had bonafidely participated in the auction sale. But since the respondent did not furnish the original title deeds and other documents, he apprehended that the title might not be proper. Therefore, he decided not to proceed with the …show more content…
Official Liquidator and Others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the official liquidator shall not provide any guarantee and/or warranty in respect of the immovable properties and the purchaser shall not be entitled to claim any compensation or deduction in price on any account whatsoever and shall be deemed to have purchased property subject to all encumbrances, liens and claims including those under the existing legislation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it is for the intending purchaser to satisfy himself in all respect as to the title, encumbrances, and so forth of the immovable property that he proposes to purchase and he cannot after having purchased the property on such terms then claim diminution in the price on the ground of defect in title or description of the