Sub section (3) of section 14 of SARFAESI Act stipulates that in case the secured creditor or it authorised officer do not act in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) of section 13 and the rules made thereunder, then such action of the secured creditor taken as per sub-section (4) of section 13 can be made invalid by Debts Recovery Tribunal and pass such order as it may consider appropriate
Fundamental justice is a legal term that signifies a dynamic concept of fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation, whereas principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command ‘significant societal consensus’ as ‘fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate.’
Prevention is better than cure says the old saying. It is very much true in the case of NPA also. But the pertinent question is whether the banks and Financial Institutions take such steps to prevent the account slipping into NPA.
The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI ACT) was enacted by Government of India to enable banks and financial institutions to realise long-term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve by exercising powers to take possession of securities, sell them and reduce non-performing assets by adopting measures for recovery or reconstruction.
The purpose of law is to ensure the dignity of human beings and to enable them to lead a decent life as free citizen having their human rights and constitutional rights protected and upholding the principles of natural justice. But the way the SARFAESI Act is interpreted and implemented by the secured creditor, authorised officer and the presiding officer of DRT and even by some of the High Court and Supreme Court judges make one believe whether the Act is an infringement into the human rights and constitutional rights of the citizens.
The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were enacted by the Government to be exclusively used for the recovery of debts of Banks and Financial Institutions.
Management of non-performing asset (NPA) is one of the foremost challenges of the banks and financial institutions. Most of the time while finding solutions to this issue, the more important aspect of human resources is being side tracked and concentration is more on the technology, rules and regulations and systems and procedures.
The law mimics the human condition in its ambiguities. Great effort has been put forth to project the image of objectivity and a lack of bias in legal decisions. Try, as they may, for better or for worse, humanity cannot extricate itself from its own prejudices and agendas.
Proper monitoring of credit in banks has assumed greater significance in the effective management of lending. The success of credit monitoring largely depends on two aspects namely the co-operation of the borrower clients in furnishing the required data and statements to the banks on time and the capacity and knowledge of the credit monitoring authorities to take timely decisions and corrective steps to keep the borrowal accounts in good health.
Action alone produces the result and credibility does not depend upon what one says but what one does to produce the desired result. After having known the impact of NPA on the performance of the banks and financial institutions, understanding the reasons for the creation of NPA and its symptoms,
