PUSHPA DEVI KESARWANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Vipin Sinha appears for respondent No.2 Bank.

(2.) THE matter has been taken up on a mention made by Ms. Swati Agrawal that the mortgaged property is going to be sold today by respondent No.2 Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Though the petitioner has taken housing loan of Rs.3,30,000/- in the year 2002, to be paid in equal monthly instalment of Rs.3,752/- for a period of 15 years, the petitioner could be paid only Rs.30,000/-on account of medical expenditure on petitioner No.2, who is stated to be suffering from mouth cancer.

(3.) IN Transcore v. Union of INdia & Anr. [(2008) 1 SCC 125] following Mardia Chemical's case the Supreme Court held that it was not necessary to withdraw the DRT application before proceeding under the SARFAESI Act (NPA Act). The object behind both Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, and Section 17 read with Section 19 of the DRT Act is the same, namely for the recovery of debts. There is no inherent or implied inconsistency between the remedies provided under the two Acts.