1) What is the procedural mandate of Section 14 of The SecuritiZation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as SARFAESI Act)??

The following points clearly explain the procedural mandate of Section 14:

  • The CMM or DM may grant assistance to the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset if a request in writing is made to the CMM or DM within whose jurisdiction the secured asset or other document is situated.
  • The written request shall be accompanied by an affidavit duly affirmed by the authorized officer of the secured creditor affirming that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and Rules have been complied with by the secured creditor.
  • On being satisfied about the contents of the affidavit the CMM or DM shall pass necessary orders for the purpose of taking the possession of secured assets.
  • The requirement of the affidavit is not applicable to those proceedings which are already pending before the CMM/DM on the date of commencement of the Act.
  • The CMM/DM may delegate the powers to a subordinate officer.
  • CMM/DM may authorize the use of force for due compliance with the Act and Rules as necessary in the opinion of such CMM/DM
  • The order of the CMM/DM cannot be questioned in any Court of law or authority. However, the writ jurisdiction under S. 226 and 227 is not barred.

2) What are the changes that have been made in Section 14 by virtue of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016?

The changes made in Section 14 by virtue of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as the “Amendment Act, 2016”) has been summarized in the following points:

  • Second proviso to S. 14(1) – The CMM/DM after being satisfied with the contents of the Affidavit shall pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured asset within a period of thirty days from the date of application
  • The insertion of a proviso after the second proviso- In circumstances beyond the control of the CMM/DM, the time period of thirty days may be extended to sixty days after recording of the reasons. No further extension beyond sixty days, in aggregate, is permissible.
  • The aforesaid insertions have been made after taking into account the delayed disposal of the cases by the CMMs/DMs.
  • The said insertions also take into account the ratio decidendi of the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Orsand Vishal N. Kalsaria v Bank of India &Ors. The said case laws have been discussed in detail in question nos. 11,12,13.

3) Whether any special right is created in favour of the creditor by virtue of Section 14?

In order to understand whether any special right has been created in favour of the secured creditor or not by virtue of Section 14, reference must be made to certain important case laws. In the case Canara Bank, Ashram Road v. Collector of Stamps & Orsit was held the order which is passed by the DM or CMM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is not an “instrument” as per Section 2(i) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958. Further, such order of the CMM/DM does not create any special right or liability in favour of the secured creditor to bring it within the fold of the expression “conveyance” as per Section 2(g) of the Gujrat Stamp Act, 1958. The Court also held that a panchnama, which is drawn after the possession of the secured asset is taken over by the secured creditor in accordance with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, does not create any specific special right in favour of the secured creditor. Thus, no Thus, no extraordinary right is created in favour of the secured creditor by virtue of Section 14.

4) Does Section 14 require adjudication of rights and liabilities by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (herein after referred as CMM) or District Magistrate ( hereinafter referred as DM)?

In this context, reference must be made to a case law to comprehend the position of law prior to the amendment in 2016. In the case of Hari Trading Corporation v Bank of Baroda, the Bombay High Court held that Section 14 merely envisages that the CMM or DM, as the case may be, has the power to pass an order for the purpose of assisting the secured creditor. However, such assistance does not involve adjudication of rights and liabilities of the parties by the CMM or DM. Further, the right of the secured creditor to take over the possession of the secured asset of the borrower is provided in 13(4) and not in Section 14. Therefore, there is no requirement of providing right to hearing to the borrower by the CMM or DM and Section 14. Thus, in such circumstances, the remedy of the borrower is to file an appeal against the decision of the CMM or DM under Section 17. However, by virtue of the Amendment Act, 2016 such position has undergone a substantial change as discussed in question no. 13.

5) Whether there are any contradictory views on the powers of CJM and CMM after making due reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

In the case K. Arockiyaraj & Ors v CJM, it was held by the Madras High Court that Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the “CrPc”) provisions separately deal with the functions, powers and jurisdiction of the CMM, DM and CJM (hereinafter referred as the “CJM”) and the High Court has the absolute power to appoint the CJM to perform judicial and administrative functions analogous to the power of CMM in the metropolitan areas. However, keeping in mind the legislative mandate behind Section 2(2) and Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, Section 14(1) must be given its true meaning without importing the CrPc provisions. It was further held that as the language of Section 14(1) is free from any ambiguity therefore there is clarity that in metropolitan areas, the assistance of the CMM or DM can be availed by the secured creditor for the purpose of taking over the possession of the secured asset. In non-metropolitan areas, such assistance shall be extended only by the DM alone not CJM. The subsequent judgements in T. John Bose v State Bank of India & Ors and T.C. Ramadoss & Ors. v The Chief Manager & Authorised Officer State Bank of India and Ors. Have placed reliance on the ratio decidendi of the K. Arockiyaraj case.

On the contrary, in the case Federal Bank Ltd. v Punnus the Court placed reliance on the ratio decidendi of Muhammed Ashraf v Union of India in which it was held that CJM in non-metropolitan areas has the same powers as that of CMM in metro-politan areas and therefore there is no bar on exercise of power by the CJM under section 14 in non-metropolitan areas. It was further held that the CrPc provisions can be called in to aid in order to interpret the SARFAESI Act provisions, as may be required.

6) Who can act in capacity of an officer under Section 14(1-A)?

Ans. In the case Andhra Bank & Ors v Dinesh Kumar Agarwal & Ors, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the “DRAT”) that the assistance provided by the Assistant General Manager of the bank to take over the possession of the secured property did not imply that the possession was taken over by an officer as required under Section 14. Therefore, it was held that such possession of the secured property was taken over by the secured creditor in accordance with Section 13(4) and not Section 14.

In the case of S. Chandramohan&Anr v CMM, Chennai, the Madras High Court interpreted the term “may” as provided in Section 14(1-A) and held that the said provision is not mandatory in nature. Therefore, discretionary power is vested in the CMM or DM to authorize an officer to take over the possession of the secured asset and thereafter pass over such assets to the secured creditor. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it was held that an Advocate Commissioner being an officer of the Court can discharge all duties more efficaciously than a subordinate officer. Also, such Advocate Commissioner shall perform all functions not as a subordinate to the CMM or DM but essentially as an officer of the Court.

In the case Federal Bank Ltd. v Punnus, it was held that the function of the Advocate Commissioner to take over the possession of the secured assets is ministerial in nature and the said function is performed by the Advocate Commissioner as an officer who is sub-ordinate to the Court and not subservient in service to the CMM or DM who presides the Court.

7) What kind of power is delegated under Section 14?

The Madras High Court has held that the power which may be delegated by the CMM or DM to an officer, as provided in Section 14(1-A) of the SARFAESI Act, is merely the power to assist and such power is executive and not judicial in nature. This was held by the Court to uphold the principle of ‘delegatapotestas non potestdeligari’ which essentially implies that a judicial function of an adjudicatory body shall not be delegated.

8) What is the restraint, if any, on the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 14?

In order to understand the restraint, if any, on the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 14, reference must be made to the Madras High Court judgement in P. Palani & Anr v Central Bank of India &Ors. In this case it was held that the jurisdiction of the CMM under Section 14 is to provide assistance to the secured creditor for the purpose of taking over the possession of the secured asset and not to permit the borrower or the debtor to deal with the said secured asset to acquire money in any manner whatsoever.

Further, the DRAT held that that the Magistrate under Section 14 does not have the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on matters pertaining to the rightful and correct classification of the borrower’s account as a non-performing account by the bank.

9) What the legislative mandate behind the requirement of an affidavit is as provided in Section 14?

In order to comprehend the legislative mandate behind the enactment of Section 14, reference must be made to Shiv Charanlal Sharma v Allahabad &Orsin which the Court held that the term “shall”, as provided in the proviso to Section 14, must be interpreted as mandatory. Therefore, non-filling of an affidavit may lead to fatal consequences. However, the requirement of filing an affidavit is exempted for those proceedings which were already pending before the CMM or DM before the enactment of the Amendment Act on 15th January, 2013.

Further, in the event that the Magistrate is not satisfied with the contents of the affidavit, such Magistrate has the power to even reject the said application on the grounds of being dissatisfied with the contents of the affidavit.

10) What is the significance of the amendment in 2012 in the context of the role of the CMM/DM?

The significance of the amendment in 2012 with regards to the role of the CMM/DM was highlighted in the case of Jaffar v Dhanalakshmi Bank in which the Court held that prior to the amendment of Section 14, the only requirement of Section 14 was satisfaction of the Magistrate in relation to the documents produced by the parties and there was no necessity of any detailed inquiry for the purpose of extending assistance to the secured creditor. Thus, prior to the amendment in 2012, the role of the CMM/DM was limited; however, the post the said amendment the role of the CMM/DM has become broad and pervasive, as discussed in this article.

11) What is the importance of the landmark Supreme Court judgement on determination of rights of the tenant?

  • Section 13 of SARFAESI overrides Section 68 and 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“the Act, 1882”) but not all its provisions in relation to the rights of the lessee, under a valid lease agreement, which is created prior to the receipt of notice, under Section 13(2), by the borrower
  • In the event that the lessee has the possession of the secured asset which is in accordance with Section 65A of the Act, 1882 and such lease has not been terminated as provided in Section 111 of the Act, 1882 then the CMM/DM cannot pass an order for the secured creditor to take over the possession of the secured asset.
  • A valid lease agreement shall be considered to be terminated as per Section 111(f) of the Act, 1882 when the lessee voluntarily surrenders the secured asset. In such event, the order by the CMM/DM to pass over the possession of the secured asset to the secured creditor may be passed.
  • The CMM/DM shall adhere to the principles of natural justice in order to determine the existence of a valid tenancy.
  • In order to proof the existence of valid tenancy, the tenant must produce proof of execution of a registered instrument. In the event that there is no registered agreement then the CMM/DM shall come to a conclusion that the tenant is not entitled to possession of the secured asset from the date of the instrument or date of the delivery of the said possession.

In the case V. Vishwanathan &Ors v. District Collector-Cum Magistrate, Coimbatore District & Orsit was held that the question of the possession of the secured asset can be determined only after conducting proper enquiry and issuing notice to all the affected parties including the tenants/lessee.

In the case Vishal N. Kalsaria v Bank of India &Orsit was held that non-registration of a lease agreement does not render such tenancy nugatory and inconsequential. It was held that due attention must be paid to the relationship between two parties in the lease agreement along with the rights, obligations and liabilities of each party. Further, the fact that there is regular payment by the tenant and acceptance of rent by the lessor assumes significant importance in order to decide the claim of valid tenancy. Also, no undue advantage can be taken on the grounds that there is no existence of a valid lease agreement.

12) On what grounds can the Vishal case be distinguished?

In a recent case known as Atul Daulatrai Desai v State of Maharashtra &Ors the Court distinguished the Vishal N. Kalsaria case (supra) on the grounds that in the Vishal N. Kalsaria there was no dispute regarding the bona fide claim of the tenant, however, in the event that the tenancy claims are dubious and bogus then separate considerations apply. Accordingly the Court held as follows-

We do not think that any claim of tenancy vaguely set up and without any proof or contemporaneous record of its creation and continuance is protected and with greatest respect by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A judgment cannot be read like statutes. Eventually if the Rent Control Legislation and the benefit thereof can be availed off by tenants and occupants, the initial burden is on them to establish and prove the existence of a tenancy and that will be in jeopardy by the act of either the principal borrower or the bank. In the present case, we do not think any such proof is forthcoming, more so, when the challenge to the order passed under Section 14(1) is a clear afterthought. It is also apparent that parties like the petitioner would have to establish that the mortgagor and mortgagee were aware of the creation of the tenancy in the sense it is subsequent to the mortgage or otherwise. If it is subsequent, then, the creditor’s consent has been taken. If it is prior, then, the tenant on becoming aware of the bank’s action has filed legal proceedings claiming a declaration that the tenancy is valid, subsisting and binding.”

13) Whether the landmark judgements by the Supreme Court in the Harshad Govardhan and Vishal Kalsaria case have any significance on the timelines as inserted in Section14?

The timelines have been inserted in Section 14 by virtue of the Amendment Act, 2016 keeping in mind the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court in the Harshad Govardhan (supra) and Vishal Kalsaria case (supra). In other words, according to the rulings of the aforesaid cases, the CMM/DM must determine the existence of any third party interests in the secured property and accordingly provide opportunity of hearing to such third party as may be required on case to case basis.

14) Once an Account is not serviced for 90 days and Bank classified the Account as NPA, is it compulsory for the Bank to initiate Securitization Act?

Yes. Through it is not compulsory under the law; it is in the interest of the Bank that the situation may not go out of control, it is necessary for you to issue Securitization Notice to the borrower and guarantor, so that it will work as a pressure.

15) Once the notice is given, if the borrower pays overdue installments dues with interest and charges within 60 days period of notice, whether Bank can normalize the Account?

If the pays over-due installments with interest and charges up to the date of their making the payment, there is nothing wrong in the Bank treating the Asset as Performing Asset, as Securitization Act does not say that it cannot invoke Securitization Act repeatedly for the same Account. If in the bank’s view, the party is genuine and they had genuine difficulty and they pay the money – overdue installment and interest and other charges, with a covering letter that they will not default in future, and thereby requesting the Authorized Officer to withdraw the notice, in our opinion, there is nothing
wrong in regularizing the account; however, the Bank has to take a commercial decision in this matter. Authorized Officer is advised to take the Bank’s permission before treating the Account as Performing Asset. However, depending upon the party, you can even refuse to stop the proceedings unless entire amount with interest and charges are paid the Bank, as per the Securitization Notice.

16) If during the period of 90 days before treating the account as NPA, small amount is paid which is not servicing the overdue installments and interest &
charges, whether Bank can accept the money and treat this account as NPA and issue notice under Sec.13(2) of the Securitization Act ?

Mere paying a small amount may be a mischievous act on the part of the borrower and unless the installment with interest & charges are not fully serviced for 3 months, the Account need to be treated as NPA. The very fact that he has not serviced the entire amount of installment and bank charges for 90 days, title the Bank to treat the account as NPA and Bank may issue notice under Securitization Act. However, since issuing Securitization Notice is not compulsory, administrative decision has to be taken, to be issued for a future date.

17) How soon after expiry of 60 days, Bank should act to proceed and take
physical possession of the Assets?

There is no such date given in the Securitization Act, but in case of movable properties, it is in the interest of the Bank to proceed forthwith and take physical possession after the expiry of 60 days notice period. If it is movable item, perishable, the Authorized Officer can forthwith sell and recover the money. Such recover movable property must be taken care of and insure as if a person of ordinary prudence would do if the material belongs to him. Insurance and other charges can be debited to the Defaulters Account. If the movable property is not likely to fetch sufficient money to even cover the cost of storing, the Authorized Officer may sell the same at once.

18) What is the mode of sale of movable property?

It can either be sold by public notice, news paper or by calling for quotation from businessmen who are dealing with such material and or by Private Treaty, but all those actions of the Authorized Officer must be transparent and principle of natural justice has to be followed. We have already explained in earlier pares.

19) When the notice under Sec. 13 is not accepted by the borrower and
guarantor, what should be done?

If notices are dispatched at the last known address available with the Bank and if the notices come back with the reason “Refused” then it the notices is returned with the reason “Left” it is batter that you must paste the notice on the publish in two newspapers one in vernacular language, then proceed with the matter after 60days. If the Borrower and Guarantor are Registered Company, notice sent to Registered Address will be enough. Notices under Securitization Act can even be enough. Notice under Securitization Act can even be served by e-mail, fax, courier or hand delivery. But all these must be properly authenticated to show that in fact attempt has been made to deliver the notice. The best way of ensuring that notices are saved is to send by Registered Post A.D and send a copy under UPC.

20) Whether Authorized Officer can straight away go to the borrower and take physical possession of the secured asset without the help of Judicial Magistrate of District Magistrate?

In certain cases, it can be done but it is advisable to make an application under Sec. 14 of the Act and once the Magistrate passes an order, court officers proceed to the site and by taking police help they take physical possession of the secured asset themselves and then the officer of the court will hand over the recovered charged property to the Authorized Officer. Hence, through physical possession is taken by the Court Officer, the Authorized Officer of the Bank must be physically present at the site while taking over of any of the assets charged to the Bank, by the Court officer, as directed by the Magistrate.

21) There is a fear that Authorized Officer may be beaten up or ill-treated by the Borrower or guarantor?

Since taking of physical possession of the assets charged to the Bank is to be recovered by the Officer of the Court, with the help of police, the question of any attack on the Authorized Officer dose not arise. However, the Court officer’s along with police must be accompanied by the Authorized Officer of the Bank to the site as after the court officers take physical possession of the property, the Authorized Officer Should take charge from the court officer. Therefore, the presence of Authorized Officer is a must while taking physical possession of the property, and nobody, normally; dare to challenge the Court Officer and Police. The Panchanama draw by the Court Officer must also be signed by the Authorized Officer.

22) While taking physical possession of the property, what all to be ensured?

The court officer will draw the Panchanama of the items seized by him and he will take 2 signatures from independent witnesses and after taking the physical possession witnesses and after taking the physical possession of immovable property, Authorized Officer should fix a board at the site giving the full description that under Securitization Act, this property has been attached by the Bank (name of the Bank, Address of the Bank must be specifically mentioned) and a notice preferably on a metallic sheet must be fixed at the premises properly fixing the nail and preferably photo must be taken of the site after fixing the Banks name plate. The Authorized Officer must also put Bank’s lock to the premises and he should safeguard the property as if he would have done if it has been his own property. In certain cases, the property may be of very high value, and then Bank may even engage some Security Guards to safeguard the said properties till such time properties are disposed off.

23) In case of a movable property, what action is to be taken?

If It is a movable property, the court officer will take physical possession of the property and make a Panchanama with 2 witness and Authorized Officer must properties to an official go down or post security guards at the site to safeguard the property of the Bank.

24) Under the amended Securitization Act after getting the notice under Sec. 13, within what period the objections / representations can be made by the Borrower and Guarantors?

It should be done within a specified time limit of 60 days, which is shown in the notice under Sec. 13 of the Act. Before expiry of 60 days after getting the notice, they should make representation / objection in writing, and the Authorized Officer must reply by giving proper Speaking Order within 7days of such representation. This reply must preferably be drafted by a legal Man so that from reading of the reply, it must be seen that justice is not only done, but also appears to have been done by the Authorized Officer. Just rejecting the representation may result into invoking Article 226 & 227 the Constitution on India by the borrower and High Court in a writ may interfere, thereby action under Securitization Act will be delayed and unnecessary legal expenses will have to be incurred by the Bank.

25) Can the property of Guarantor be attached?

YES. the Guarantor’s property can be attached as long as Bank has the charge on that property and such properties can be attached irrespective of belonging to the borrower or guarantor. What is required is property must be charged to the Bank and while issuing notice of 60 days, you ensure that borrower as well as guarantors is served with Sec. 13 Notice, without exception.

26) In certain cases, charged properties are sold or assigned by the borrower, in that case what is to be done?

If after receipt of the Securitization Notice, during the period of 60 days or thereafter, if the borrower or guarantor sells the property which is charged to the Bank, this sale or assignment is an illegality and therefore the Purchaser or the Assignee will not get the title. Moreover, as per Sec. 29 of the Act, if any person contravenes or abets the contravention, the provision of the Act or any rule made there under, he shall be punishable with imprisonment, which may extend for a period of one year or with fine, or with both. Therefore, if anybody transfers or sells the charged properties, after getting the Securitization Notice, the person who is the Purchaser, the Borrower and the Guarantor (in which the Bank has a secured interest), and if disposed, they may be prosecuted under Sec.29 before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Court. Sec.29 provides that not only the contravention of the provisions of the Act but also rules made therein. Therefore, it is difficult for the Offender to escape from the clutches of laws, if any monkey business is done by him by disposing of the secured assets charged to the Bank, after getting the Notice u / s 13(2) of the Act.
Moreover, in case of immovable properties, those are charged to the Bank normally charged by creation of a Equitable or Registered Mortgage and almost all the Original Title Deeds are with Bank, as such, Original total deeds are left with Mortgagor. Hence, he cannot sell or dispose of the immovable properties, if done the Purchasers right to the property will be subject to Banks first claim being satisfied. However, Banks right to declare the sale/assignment as invalid cannot be denied to the Bank. Even criminal case can be filed by the Bank against all concerned.

27) If at the time of creation of Equitable Mortgage, whether drawing of a

YES. If the State in which such Equitable Mortgage is made, there is a state stamp Act, which prescribes stamp duty to be paid on such Stamp Act which prescribes stamp duty to be paid on such Equitable Mortgage created in the State, you must draw Memorandum of Entry and affix the requisite stamp duty and keep it with the Title documents. If no stamp is affixed on the Memorandum of Entry which is required under State Law, the Stamp Officer of the State can enter the Bank and take physical possession of all those mortgaged documents, thereby the Bank will be bereft of the security. Not only the Bank should draw the Memorandum of Entry and affix stamp as required by State Law, but also the Memorandum of Entry must be entered in a Register maintained by the Bank for that purpose. Avoiding paying Stamp Duty on Memorandum of Entry is AKIN to sitting on a volcanic point.

28) Can the mortgage of immovable property is created by deposit of title deeds of the properties in a state where no stamp duty is prescribed on Memorandum of Entry?

YES. This can be done but it will be a moral wrong on the part of the Bank as the intention is very clear to evade the legally payable State revenue, as if avoided to help the Borrower. However, when the Equitable Mortgage is created in a State where there is no prescription of stamp duty payable on MOE, it will be a perfect mortgage even if the property is situated outside that State. But, besides the aforesaid moral wrong, the Bank if it wants to invoke Securitization Act or any other legal proceedings and rely upon the mortgage created outside the State, it is necessary that, within 30 days of these original documents being brought in the State in which there is prescription of stamp duty payable on such mortgage, the stamp duty must be paid, and then only mortgage can be recognized in a court of Law or Tribunal, or for the purpose of taking action under Securitization Act, in the state where there is a requirement of paying stamp duty on MOE.

29) Whether MOE can be signed by the mortgagor?

NO. MOE must be signed by the Bank Manager who accepts the titles deeds in a Notified Area under the Transfer of Property Act; with an intention to create a mortgage and with that intention the Mortgagor has handed over the documents. Therefore, Mortgagor has handed over the documents. Therefore, Mortgagor should not sign this MOE but he has to sign other documents, to bring on record that he has created mortgage of his property in favor of the Bank. On the MOE, the Mortgagor and the Mortgagee both should never sign as it would amount to an Agreement and that attracts stamp duty, again. The declarations and undertakings to be taken from Mortgagor are annexed to Notes on Mortgages in this booklet.

30) Whether Bank can take two actions for recovery, under DRT Act and Securitization Act simultaneously?

YES. There are a number of Court decisions to those effects. Copies of such decisions of DRAT and High Courts is enclosed for your information. Please read these Judgments carefully.

31) Whether deposit given by the Bank for leasing premises can be recovered under DRT proceedings?

As per DRT-II judgments dated 2/4/2004 reported in 2005(II) DRT- 133, which is confirmed by the DRAT, such money cannot be recovered by filling recovery proceedings under the DRT , as DRT has held that this is not an amount recoverable under the DRT , as definition of “Bank Activity’’ cannot be imparted in the present case. Copy of the judgment is enclosed. With due respect , we defer with this judgment of the DRT and confirmed by DRAT , in as much as, once the Leave & License Agreement is terminated, the deposit lying with the lesser becomes a debt due to the bank. Therefore, the concerned bank may take this matter up to Supreme Court to get final judgment on this issue.

32) What are the basic title documents that the Mortgagor has to give to the
Mortgagee so as to make the mortgage effective?

The Transfer of Property Act, Sec.58(f) deals with creation of mortgage but does not specifically speak about the title deeds that needs to be given at the time of creation of Equitable Mortgage. However, the Bank must always insist upon all the Original Documents of title with the Link Documents of earlier transactions so that mortgage will be foolproof.













This Article is Written by Mr. Keval Tachak, Final Year Student of KES College of Law, Mumbai University.

DISCLAIMER: The above information is for educational and knowledge purpose. Proper care has been taken while drafting this article. Neither the Author nor the web publisher holds any responsibility for any mistake that may have inadvertently crept in. The Author has taken all care and effort to ensure that the legislative provisions reproduced here are accurate and upto date. However, the Author and website takes no responsibility for any inaccuracy or omission contained herein for advice, action or inaction based here upon. Reference must be made to the Official Gazette issued by the Government of India for the authoritative text of any Act, Rule, Regulation, Notification or Orders. The Author or web publisher shall not be liable for any direct, consequential, or incidental damages arising out of the use of this article.