NEW DELHI, 09/04/2025: A view of the Delhi High Court, in New Delhi on Wednesday Photo: Sushil Kumar Verma / The Hindu | Photo credit: SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA
The Delhi High Court has said that the provisions of the SC/ST Act relating to unlawful occupation or dispossession of land belonging to people belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be used to prevent a bank from exercising its lawful mortgage rights.
Justice Sachin Datta made this prima facie observation while staying the proceedings initiated by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes against Axis Bank, its Managing Director (MD) and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
“Prima facie, in the context of the facts of the present case, Sections 3(1)(f) and (g) of the Atrocities Act are inapplicable as the same cannot be invoked to exclude/prevent the exercise of the mortgage right/security interest of the petitioner,” the judge said in an order passed on October 16.
The Commission had ordered the MD and CEO of Axis Bank to appear in person after a statement was made by a person alleging violation of Section 3(1)(f) and (g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act).
Section 3(1)(f) punishes the unlawful occupation or cultivation of land belonging to a member of the SC/ST community, while Section 3(1)(g) deals with the punishment of the unlawful dispossession of his land or premises by a member of the SC/ST community.
According to the petition in the court, a credit facility of Rs 16.69 crore was approved by Axis Bank to Sundev Appliances Ltd in 2013, secured by a mortgage in Vasai in Maharashtra.
After the borrower defaulted, the account was declared a non-performing asset in 2017, prompting the bank to invoke its legal rights, which was followed by a civil dispute over ownership of the mortgaged property.
One of the persons involved in the dispute subsequently approached the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
The High Court stayed the order saying that the proceedings pending before the Commission were without jurisdiction.
“The proceedings pending before respondent No. 1 (National Commission for Scheduled Tribes), in particular the summons issued therein requiring the MD & CEO of the petitioner (bank) to appear before respondent No. 1, are without jurisdiction. No reason has been given to require senior officials of the petitioner to appear personally before respondent No. 1,” the judge said and posted the matter for further hearing at 5 February next year.
Published on October 22, 2025
#Provisions #SCST #Act #restrict #mortgage #rights #banks #Delhi