29th July 2012 10:44 AM
Justice C N Ramachandran Nair said that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act which came into effect in 2002 should be removed since it has brought much harm to the loan borrowers from banks. If not revoked, it should be amended so as to benefit the borrowers, he said.
Justice Ramachandran was speaking at the inauguration of a seminar on implications of action taken by the bankers against borrowers under SARFAESI Act.
“The Act was brought into effect to help banks so that they could recover their dues from the borrowers. It has helped the bankers. However, it has given them unnecessary power since they can auction off the properties of the owner without their consent at a much lesser price than the market price. This will bring huge losses to the borrower as the market price of land is presently at an all time high,” Justice Ramachandran said.
Speaking about the atrocities being meted out by the bankers to the borrowers through this Act around the country, the High Court Justice pressed for the need of the Parliamentarians to amend the Act so that the owner gets a right to sell his land at his own price, after the bank auctions off a portion of the land to get back his dues. Justice Ramachandran added many suicides have been committed in the past because the borrowers, especially the farmers, are not provided any security.
Posts
on OA 796/o6 (DRT- Visakapatnam)
ReplyDeletesaid
" the bank did not maintain the accounts properly
in the loan account and there is no explanation from
the bank so far as maintaining of the acount is concernred
and it is clear in all the bank cases and the account copy
will fasten the liability but in this case the account copy
itself is incorrect and people will believe the account copy
of the bank and this account copy seems to be totally
incorrect inview of the several pay slips filed
by the defendents which are marked
as EX B13 to EX B18 containing many books.
In these CIRCUMSTANCES THEACCOUNT COPY
CANNOT BE BELIVED AND THEREFORE THE OAhas to be
allowed only for the amount of Rs. 1128685/- with simple interest 6%pa.,
from the date of OA till realisation.
This recovery certificate is being issued
since it is public money and there is no document
to show how much amount acually due to the applicant bank.
The bank never proved the amount due.
It is the intial burden on the bank according to the
Evidence Act Sec 101 to 103 and the intial burden is not
discharged by the bank.
Therfore, the bank cannot base on the demerits
of the defendents case."
The case before DRAT., Chennai. Actually paid excess Rs. 4 lakhs. Auditor certified submitted into court. Bank auctioned for lesser decree amount crores worth of property and locked the property from more than 4 years. It is cinima house. Bank finaned Bank guarantee only to supplier
DRT, Visakhapatnam in OA 796/06
Is it justice in INDIA?
ANYBODY REALLY PROVE JUSTICE IN INDIA STILL ALIVE