CANARA BANK Vs. HARIDAS SHENOY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant-bank as well as the party respondents.

(2.) It is not in dispute that totally three kinds of loans were raised by the borrower along with his family members. One is M/s.Niash Industries, which opened a cash credit account and a term loan account. Another regarding the house property, and yet another a gold loan. So far as M/s.Niash Industries, as brought on record, the properties were brought for public auction and a third party auction purchaser had purchased the same for a sum of Rs.69.54 lakhs as against the liability of Rs.37 lakhs. However, the first respondent borrower approached Debt Recovery Tribunal and the matter is pending before the Tribunal.

(3.) Then coming to the housing loan raised by the respondents, when the appellant bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the borrower approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal and obtained a stay of the proceedings, therefore, the appellant bank is not in a position to realise any money in respect of the housing loan as well which has become overdue.