05 February 2012
THis is not a question of capability but of a need. The new company who has taken over the previous Company is liable for its old acts and liabilities. So second notice u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act is toally needless. Now the predicament of the Borrower is that if he wishes to challenge the second notice u/s 17 of the Act , he would again need to pay the fees for the case.
But that is not needed. The borrower simply needs to make the new company added or substituted in the pending proceeding which would effectively resolve his problem.
06 February 2012
Bank or FI can withdraw earlier Demand Notice u/S 13(2) and can issue fresh notice curing the defects of the earlier one. You may pray before DRT in the existing Securitisation Appeal to award costs and compensation for the proceedings wrongly taken by the F I, as provided in Sec. 19 of the SARFAESI Act. You can challenge the fresh Demand Notice invoking Sec.13(3).
06 February 2012
Orders passed by DRT against previous company are equally binding upon the fresh company. Mere name change does not cause a escape if you amend and add newer name in DRT'S petition.However it is open to them to correct errors and withdraw earlier by substitution of a newer one but as your petition is pending i think amendment should serve your purpose.
06 February 2012
Orders passed by DRT against previous company are equally binding upon the fresh company. Mere name change does not cause a escape if you amend and add newer name in DRT'S petition.However it is open to them to correct errors and withdraw earlier by substitution of a newer one but as your petition is pending i think amendment should serve your purpose.