1. It has prospective effect .
2. Exclusive of 15 days.
3. Yes
Regards
SARFAESI amendment rule 9(4)
E auction held on 13 March 2013, SA was pending in DRT, bank has extended time for 90days rule 9(4) 75% payment without the consent of the borrower, but in the New amendment rule of 9(4) in 2016 which says extension of time does not require the borrower consent. Question 1) will the new amended rule 2016 be applicable to the sale held on 2013. Is it retrospective or prospective or qurative Question 2) extension on 90days time, is it inclusive or exclusive of the 15days which is already given. Question 3) single bid auction purchaser has given cheque on the same day, and it it realised on 5th day .is it acceptable. Any supreme judgments available
Asked 5 years ago in Civil Law
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
13 Answers
1) new amendment is prospective
2) it is exclusive of 15 days
3) it is acceptable
Prospective effect but I dont think consent of borrower was ever required for extension of time. And in 2013 maximum period could have extended to 30 days and not 90 days.
90 days inclusive of 15 days.
Purchaser made the payment via cheque on same day. Now when secured creditor realise the cheque is not a concern of purchaser until cheque bounce.
1. Since all the amendments unless specifically mentioned to have retrospective effect. the same is to be considered as prospective. Hence this amendment has no applicability to the issue occurred in 2013.
2. The extension to be calculated from the time already given.
3. Yes
1. No, How can a rule of 2016 be applicable on a sale help in 2013.
2. Exclusive
3. Yes
Hi
The answer to your queries are as follows:
1) The amendments in SARFAESI Act was made on 04-November-2016.
1) The new amendment rule(where borrower consent is not required for extension of time) is Prospective.
2) In your case, cause of action arose on the date on which the bank issued you an extension letter and hence the amendment made in sarfaesi act on [deleted] will not be applicable in your case.
2) Extension of time by 90 days : under the earlier rule, auction purchaser had to mandatorily make payment within maximum three months from date of auction and hence it is inclusive of the 15 days already given.
3) Consent of the borrower: Supreme court had held that consent of borrower is mandatory for extension of time.
You may refer to the judgement in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. vs. Sri Ikbal and Ors. (22.08.2013 - SC) where supreme court has categorically stated that borrower consent is mandatory for extension of time.
Hope this information is useful.
1. If there is a particular mention that the new amendment or rule takes place retrospectively then it shall be applicable accordingly if not then it may have prospective effect only.
2. The additional extension shall be inclusive of the already extended 15 days until and unless specially excluded.
3. There is nothing wrong in it that they have realised the cheque amount at a later date due to various reasons.
1. It is prospective . This amendment will not be applicable to the sale held in 2013.
2. it is inclusive of 15 days which is already given.
3. Yes, it is acceptable
Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. vs. Sri Ikbal and Ors.
It's prospective
It's 90 days from the sale
Yes
Dear Sir/Madam,
You are informed here that the law is modification is not retrospective and hence the amendment of 2016 is not applicable to sale held in 2013. The order of extension of time might have described the date of inclusion of 15 days or its exclusion. If there is no mention, the same will be treated as included. As per your input, the payment by bidder is fully acceptable.
1) New amendment is prospective in nature which is dated 4.11.2016.
2) It is exclusive of 15 days.
3) Yes, the same is acceptable.
1. prospective
2.inclusive
3.obviously cheque will take some time for its clearance. Normally banks take DD
the amendments is prospective.
it is inclusive of 15 days.
of course it is applicable.
