Debt recovery tribunal
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 24 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
The applicant bank has applied for the injunction on transfer, selling of the immovable assets of the defendant,& has also demanded for the attachment & possession of the immovable assets of the defendant,in the same injunction application,the applicant bank has admitted that the concerned personal loan is unsecured loan & neither any collateral security was taken nor any mortgage deed was made at the time of sanction of the loan.Is section 19(12) of recovery of debts act 1993, applicable for unsecured personal loans? Can the unsecured personal loan be made secured under section 19(12) of recovery of debts act 1993, if there is a dispute on the loan agreement? on what grounds this injunction application can be dismissed?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 24 November 2011
Section 19(12) of DRT ACT reads as under:
The Tribunal may make an interim order (whether by way of injunction or stay or attachment) against the defendant to debar him from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with, or disposing of, any property and assets belonging to him without the prior permission of the Tribunal.
The provision is crystal clear and does confers powers in Tribunal all those a civil court enjoys with regard to injunction and attachment before judgement
by different orders of C.P.C.
Hence i opine Tribunal is vested with powers.
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 24 November 2011
Agree with Prabhakar sir
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 24 November 2011
The provision is akin of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC restraining the defendant borrower to dispose off his properties during the pendancy of the litigation but bank cannot pray to take possession or make auction of the unsecured property which is even not mortgaged to it. The application/prayer to that extent is illegal and cannot be maintained at all.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 24 November 2011
I feel strange how rajeev and barman are agreed to the advice of the prabhakar singh without going through the query properly.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 26 November 2011
I feel sorry on their behalf.But i do not need any tutorial from makkad to form understanding about analytically understanding any fact in any query unless my poor eyesight ditches me.I could not find any fault.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 26 November 2011
I rarely agree with Mr Makkad but this time he is absolutely right.
DRT can not give blank stay under 19 (12)and certainly not for unsecured loans.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 26 November 2011
I have gone through the query, the replies of my learned friends Mr.Singh and Mr.Makkad.
Both of them are right in their replies, both of them are not contradictory.
Mr.Singh says that the bank can get an injunction against alienating the property. He had not said about taking possession of a property which was not mortgaged.
Mr.Makkad says that the bank cannot take possession of the property which was not mortgaged. He had not denied the possibilities of the injunction.
IN civil cases, even the individuals can apply for an interim order ABJ (attachment before judgement), by this order, the borrower cannot alienate the property till the disposal of the main case.
So, the bank is also having the similar option in recovering their unsecured loans.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 06 December 2014
what are the remedies left for the borrower to squash such an order by DRT?
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 06 December 2014
What is the need for reopening this query after 3 years?
