In Brief
A debtor challenged recovery steps taken by a cooperative bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets Act, 2002, claiming jurisdictional defects and arguing he lacked resources for a deposit. The Supreme Court, balancing both parties' interests, directed the bank to first exhaust two primary mortgaged properties before resorting to a fourth item, and required prior notice to the debtor regarding sale of later properties. The Court also barred further litigation on sale procedures without permission, recognizing that pending disputes deterred buyers and delayed recovery for all parties.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.