I have taken mortgage loan from cooperative bank, bank not disbursed s

627 votes

You appear to have a strong grievance regarding disproportionate action by the bank. From the facts stated: o Mortgage of Entire Property vs Partial Disbursement If the bank sanctioned a larger loan but actually disbursed only part of it, yet obtained mortgage/security over the entire property, this needs scrutiny. The bank can generally secure repayment, but terms of sanction, disbursement conditions, and documentation are important. Payment of EMI / Interest Before NPA If you were regularly paying EMIs/interest and the account was wrongly or prematurely classified as NPA, that can be challenged. The bank must follow RBI norms and proper procedure before declaring NPA. Sealing of Running Factory and Residential House If both a running factory and residential property worth ₹13–14 crore were sealed/recovered for a claim of only ₹2.6 crore, you may argue: Action is arbitrary and excessive Secured asset value is grossly disproportionate to dues Bank should have considered less drastic recovery measures Sealing a running unit destroys business and repayment capacity Case Pending Before DRT Pune Since matter is already before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune, the correct course is to strongly pursue relief there. Reliefs You Can Seek in DRT: Stay on auction / possession / further coercive action De-sealing of factory to restart business Correct statement of account Challenge wrongful NPA classification Restructuring / One Time Settlement (OTS) Valuation challenge if property undervalued or excessive security enforced Restoration of possession, if procedure violated Important Legal Points: Whether SARFAESI Act notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) were properly served Whether symbolic/physical possession followed due process Whether valuation reports are genuine and updated Whether residential property could have been excluded if factory asset sufficient Whether cooperative bank had proper authority depending on applicable law and date Immediate Advice: Keep all loan sanction letters, mortgage deeds, account statements, EMI proof, notices. File detailed affidavit before DRT. Press for interim relief for reopening factory. Obtain independent valuation of property. Explore settlement simultaneously. Frank Legal View: If dues are only ₹2.6 crore and secured assets are worth ₹13–14 crore, tribunal may examine whether bank acted harshly, but mortgage enforcement itself is not illegal merely due to higher value security. Success depends on procedure violations and unfair conduct, not only value mismatch. Suggested Court Line: “Bank has taken coercive possession of assets worth many times the alleged dues, including a running industrial unit, thereby destroying the borrower’s source of repayment. Action is excessive, arbitrary and contrary to principles of fair recovery.”

Advocate Shweta Pandey LawRato

844 votes

Sir, from the facts stated by you, the action of the bank appears to be excessive and legally challengeable, particularly if the entire property was mortgaged despite partial disbursement of the loan amount and possession was taken of assets worth ₹13–14 crores against an alleged outstanding of ₹2.6 crores. The matter can be contested before the DRT on grounds of improper NPA classification, disproportionate SARFAESI action, and illegal sealing of a running factory causing serious business loss. A detailed review of the sanction letter, notices, account statements, and valuation documents is necessary to build a strong defence and seek interim reliefs. You may share the complete papers for proper legal assessment. We can also discuss the matter further over a call.

Advocate Mrugen Dhage LawRato