Judgments and Orders passed by Delhi High Court "Banking and Finance"

In Trans Asian Industries Exposition Private Limited v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited [29], the Court held that the expiry of the cumulative period of 30 days plus 30 days as provided for under the second and third provisos to Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFESI Act’) would not mean that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate would be rendered functus officio to pass any further orders in the proceedings. The Court further held that the said provisos were intended to ensure that the matters where taken up with utmost urgency and were not to be read in a manner which would defeat the spirit of the SARFESI Act itself.

In Canara Bank v. Leatheroid Plastics Private Limited [30], the Court reiterated that the parties are bound by the rate of interest agreed to between them along with the periodical rests and the Debt Recovery Tribunal (‘DRT’), would ordinarily not be justified in modifying the same till the date of filling of the application before it. It was noted, however, that for the period that the matter was pending before the DRT as also for the stipulation of interest for the future, the DRT has the requisite discretion and jurisdiction to fix a reasonable rate of interest considering the relevant facts and circumstances.

In Mayank Sharma v. Santhosh Sharma [31], the Court observed that once the suit property had been put to auction in furtherance of appropriate proceedings before the DRT, then an evidently collusive suit filed by a family member of the defendants seeking to demonstrate that the property in question was a Hindu Undivided Family (‘HUF’) property was liable to be rejected.

In Power Max (India) Private Limited v. Jindal Urban Waste Management (Guntur) Limited [32], the Court held that the mere fact that an unconditional bank guarantee incorporated the term ‘indemnified’ at a solitary instance could not convert the document into a letter of indemnification.

https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-delhi-high-court-in-review-february-2020-part-i

Compensation under SARFAESI Act

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in ‘Mardia Chemicals’ case, while upholding the constitutional validity of Securitization, Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for brevity the Act) had held that secured creditor has to take higher degree of caution in exercising any of the rights under the Act in view of stringent nature of the provisions of the Act. The Action taken should be bona fide and transparent. Sec.32 of the Act provides for immunity to secured creditor or any of its officers against prosecution or other legal proceedings for bona fide action taken by him under the Act.  Bona fide action means action taken in good faith and in consonance to the provisions of the Act and Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 (for brevity “the Rules”) framed thereunder. However any negligent or fraudulent act of secured creditor cannot be said to be bona fide act and therefore is not covered by Sec.32 of the Act.

 

2. Sec.32 of the Act reads thus:  “No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any secured creditor or any of his officers or manager exercising any of the rights of the secured creditor or borrower for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith under this Act”.

 

3. An authority clothed with statutory power cannot seek excuse for negligent acts as the borrower may suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated even in terms of money. Where something has gone seriously wrong, it is both inconvenience and distress. Distress includes embarrassment, anxiety, disappointment and loss of expectation. The degree of distress involved can vary widely which can be little more than a relatively minor annoyance. Distress and inconvenience often go hand in hand. Inconvenience includes incurring of any unwarranted expenditure of time and money to protect against wrongful action. Pain and suffering are considered as more extreme forms of distress and inconvenience. Compensation is meant to make good the loss by awarding damages to the party who suffered distress in an illegal action. These damages are meant specifically to compensate a person against negligent action or a deliberate act, of a statutory duty.

 

4. For that reason, Sec.19 is embodied in the Act as a safe guard against such harsh and unsavoury action. Perhaps for this reason, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Mardia Chemicals’ case also observed that there is no need for framing another law for fixing “Lender’s liability”. Sec.19 of the Act is extracted and reproduced hereunder:

 

“19. Right of borrower to receive compensation and costs in certain cases: If the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Court of District Judge, on an application made under section 17 or section 17A or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court on an appeal preferred under section 18 or section 18A, holds that the possession of secured assets by the secured creditor is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder and directs the secured creditors to return such secured assets to the concerned borrowers, such borrower shall be entitled to the payment of such compensation and costs as may be determined by such Tribunal or Court of District Judge or Appellate Tribunal or the High Court referred to in section 18B.”

 

5.  Sec.19 creates a statutory right in favour of borrower to receive compensation provided the following two conditions are fulfilled:

 

i). if DRT/Dist.Court/DRAT/High Court under Secs.17/17A/18/18A  holds that possession of secured assets by the secured creditor is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and

 

ii). directs the secured creditor to return the secured assets to the concerned borrowers.

 

6. The theory of damages is that a compensation is given in satisfaction for the injury sustained, in terms of money for reparation of the damages suffered which one would not have sustained but for the wrong done by the other party.Section 73 of the Contract Act is the general law governing all cases, resulting in loss or damage to the party who suffered damages.

 

7. The expression ‘compensation’ is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to damages, although compensation may often have to be measured by the same rule for breach of a contract. The word ‘Compensation’ is usually used interalia with ‘damages’, however the word ‘Compensation’ denotes a sum of money payable to a person on account of the loss or damage caused to him by the breach of a statutory duty. The damages on the other hand, mean the estimate of some loss and injury actually sustained. The expression ‘compensation’ is not ordinarily used as an equivalent to damages, although compensation may often have to be measured, by the same rule as damages are measured in action for a breach of contract.

 

8. The compensation is given only when actual loss or injury is suffered by the Claimant. The fundamental principle of law of damages is that the person injured shall have fair and just compensation commensurate with loss sustained in consequence of anything done wrong. “Punitive or exemplary damages” also can be awarded by DRT where a respondent acted in a reckless or violent manner.

 

9. Entitlement of compensation and costs may be decided by DRT/Dist.Court/DRAT/High Court under Secs.17/17A/18/18A. This Section does not impose any mandatory duty to DRT to award compensation in each and every case. This is obvious from the word “may” appearing in the language of the section. Therefore it is advisable that, borrower seeks for this relief specifically and invariably in the Sec.17 application itself and produce evidence or rely on evidence to prove the damages suffered. There is no need to file any separate application under Sec.19 of the Act. It is settled law that if no relief is claimed, the authority has no power to grant relief.

 

10.  Sec.19 of the Act is ambiguous as to whether this right is available to aggrieved person (eg. third party or bona fide tenant) also or not. In many cases third parties also face crucial position at the time of forceful / physical dispossession under Sec.14 of the Act. Of course the aggrieved persons are entitled to costs of the application under Sec.17 of the Act but entitlement to compensation is not obvious from the reading of the Section. DRT has no power as it cannot supplement law in this regard as a legislator (casus omissus= When a statute or an instrument of writing undertakes to foresee and to provide for certain contingencies, and through mistake, or some other cause, a case remains to be provided for, it is said to be a casus omissus)

Source: Lawyersclub