Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
WESTERN DIVISION
AT LAUTOKA
[CIVIL JURISDICTION]
Civil Action No. HBC 190 of 2021
IN THE MATTER of Mortgage, No: 877652 given by AVITESH NARAYAN SHARMA T/A VENUS 3 MINI MART of 35 Drasa Avenue, Lautoka over the commercial property comprised in State Lease No. 812392 in favour of the BANK OF BARODA
BETWEEN: BANK OF BARODA a Government of India Undertaking registered in Fiji under section 325 of the Companies Act 216 and carrying on its banking business in the Republic of Fiji
PLAINTIFF
AND: AVITESH NARAYAN SHARMA T/A VENUS 3 MINI MART of 35 Drasa Avenue, Lautoka
DEFENDANT
Before: Master U.L. Mohamed Azhar
Counsels: Mr. R. Singh with A. Swamy for the Plaintiff
Mr. J. Dinati for the Defendant
Date of Judgment: 25.11.2021
JUDGMENT
01. The plaintiff Bank took out the originating summons pursuant to Order 88 of the High Court Rules against the defendant. The summons is supported by an affidavit sworn by Dharmendra Dipak Nand - the branch manager of the plaintiff company and seeks the following orders:
02. The summons was served on the defendant and the affidavit of service was filed for the proof of service. Thereafter, the plaintiff’s solicitor filed the Notice of Appointment to hear the Originating Summons pursuant to Order 28 rule 3 of the High Court Rules. Upon service of that Notice, the defendant, appearing in person, filed his affidavit in opposition. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed a supplementary affidavit in support of the summons, few days before the date fixed for hearing. At hearing of the summons, it was found by the court that, the defendant did not have an opportunity to respond to the supplementary affidavit filed by the plaintiff. The court then vacated the hearing and allowed the defendant to file his affidavit in opposition and also directed the plaintiff to file the affidavit in reply, if it was necessary.
03. The parties complied with the directions of the court and the affidavits were filed accordingly. At hearing of the summons, counsels for both the plaintiff and the defendant made oral submission and the counsel for the plaintiff tendered the written submission too.
04. The Order 88 of the High Court Rules provides for the procedure for the mortgage actions. It applies to any action by a mortgagee or mortgagor or by any person having the right to foreclose or redeem any mortgage, being an action in which there is a claim for any of the reliefs mentioned in sub rule 1 (1). If the plaintiff is the mortgagee and claims delivery of possession, in an originating summons, the supporting affidavit must comply with certain requirements mentioned in rule 3 of the Order 88, which reads that:
(2) The affidavit must exhibit a true copy of the mortgage and the original mortgage or, in the case of a registered charge, the charge certificate must be produced at the hearing of the summons.
(3) Where the plaintiff claims delivery of possession the affidavit must show the circumstances under which the right to possession arises and, except where the Court in any case or class otherwise directs, the state of the account between the mortgagor and mortgagee with particulars of-
(a) the amount of the advance;
(b) the amount of the periodic payments required to be made;
(c) the amount of any interest or instalments in arrears at the date of issue of the originating summons and at the date of the affidavit; and
(d) the amount remaining due under that mortgage.
(4) Where the plaintiff claims delivery of possession, the affidavit must give particulars of every person who to the best of the plaintiff’s knowledge is in possession of the mortgaged property.
05. The supporting affidavit sworn by the branch manager of the plaintiff clearly set out the grounds on which the current application was made. The defendant being the registered proprietor of the subject property mortgaged it to the plaintiff to secure repayment of all loans, advances, charges, interest and other banking accommodation. The copy of the duly registered Mortgage No. 877652 is exhibited with the supporting affidavit marking as “C”. The affidavit also provides the details of the amount advanced and the repayment scheme. Accordingly, a sum of $ 2,790,666.34 was advanced to the defendant on or about 21st March 2017 at the interest rate of 10% per annum. The defendant was to make monthly repayment in sum of $ 12,275.00 to the plaintiff. The defendant defaulted in payment and the plaintiff through its solicitors sent Notice of Default/Demand on 23.01.2020 to the defendant. Thereafter, on 15.04.2020 the plaintiff issued a Mortgagee’s Sale Notice on the defendant. Both notices were acknowledged by the defendant and copies of them are exhibited as “D” and “E” respectively. The defendant failed and or neglected to clear the arrears and pay the amount remaining due under the Mortgage. As at 26.08.2021, the monthly repayment arrears and the amount due under the Mortgage was a sum of 1,809,861.10. This led the plaintiff to commence this proceeding by way of an originating summons, seeking delivery of possession of the subject property. The supporting affidavit further highlighted the provisions in clause 5.2 of the Mortgage which allow the plaintiff to take possession of the subject property in case of default by the defendant.
06. The supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, among other things, provides the updated loan statement as at 08th September 2021. Accordingly, the total amount due to the plaintiff under the Mortgage was 2.084,645.44.
07. The defendant, in his first affidavit filed in opposition of the supporting affidavit, admitted that he defaulted in repayment and also agreed to the total amount due under the Mortgage as claimed in the supporting affidavit. Conversely, he disputed updated total amount claimed in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff, whilst admitting his default. The defence, put forward by the defendant in his both affidavits, is that, the employees of the plaintiff had colluded and fraudulently embezzled approximated a sum of $ 718,132.15 from his account maintained at plaintiff bank. He further claimed that, the deponent of the affidavits of the plaintiff and those in the headquarters of plaintiff knew about this embezzlement.
08. It has been a long-established right in common law that, a mortgagee has proprietary right as the owner of the legal estate to go into the possession of the mortgaged property, at any time after the mortgage is executed unless such right is limited either by a contract or a statute. There is number of cases which established this right. In Fourmaids, Ltd. v. Dudley Marshal (Properties), Ltd (1957) 2 All ER 35 Harman, J held at page 36 that:
The right of the mortgagee to possession in the absence of some specific contract has nothing to do with default on the part of the mortgagor. The mortgage my go into possession before the ink is dry on the mortgage unless by a term expressed or necessarily implied in the contract he has contracted himself out of that right. He has the right because he has a legal term of years in the property. If there is an attornment clause, he must give notice. If there is a provision expressed or to be implied that, so long as certain payments are made he will not go into possession, then he has contracted himself out of his rights. Apart from that, possession is a matter of course.
09. Goff L.J. in Western Bank Ltd. v. Schindler (1977) 1 Ch. 1 cited the wording of Harman J in the above matter, and said of a mortgagee's right to possession of the mortgaged property at p.20 as follows:
"It has for a very long time been established law that a mortgagee has a proprietary right at common law as owner of the legal estate to go into possession of the mortgaged property. This right has been unequivocally recognised in a number of modern cases: see, for example, Four Maids Ltd. v. Dudley Marshall (Properties Ltd. (1957) Ch. 317. ... It has nothing to do with default: See per Harman J. in the Four-Maids case
Mortgagee may, after default, enter into possession
75. A mortgagee, upon default in payment of the mortgage money or any part thereof, may enter into possession of the mortgaged land by receiving the rents and profits thereof or may distrain upon the occupier or tenant of the said land for the rent then due.
5.2 Consequences of default
If any event of default occurs, you are in default under each agreement between you and us and we may:
(a) require that you immediately pay us the secured money; and
(b) take or give up possession (as often as we think necessary) of property and of any rents and profits of the property; and
(c) ......................
(d) .....................
(e) ......................
(f) exercise all other rights, powers and remedies that a mortgagee or owner has at law in relation to the property.
Hence the mortgagee in the present case has its contractual powers under the mortgage to take proceedings for ejectment, the statutory powers under the Property Law Act and its powers under common law to enter into possession. These powers have not been negatived by the mortgage. The mortgagee therefore entitled to the possession.
The mortgagee will not be restrained from exercising his power of sale because of the amount is in dispute, or because the mortgagor has begun a redemption claim, or because the mortgagor objects to the manner in which the sale is being arranged. (Emphasis is added).
If then the mortgage does not itself restrict the bank’s right to take immediate possession of the property as legal mortgagee, the defendants have to submit and do submit that these rights have been abrogated by virtue of the events alleged in the disputed paragraphs of their pleadings. One formidable obstacle in the way of such submission is the line of authority which clearly establishes the principle that the existence of a cross-claim, even if it exceeds the amount of mortgage debt, will not by itself defeat a right to possession enjoyed by a legal charge. I refer in particular to decision of Nourse J in Mobil Oil Co Ltd v Rawlinson (1981) 43 P &CR 221, the unreported decision of this court in Barclays Bank plc v Tennet [1984] CA Transcript 242, and the decision of Mervyn Davies J in Citibank Trust Ltd v Ayivor [1987] 3 All ER 241, [1987] 1 WLR 1157.
This Court has long held the view that failing payment into Court of the amount sworn by the Mortgagee as due and owing under the
Mortgage, no restraint should be placed on the exercise of the Mortgagee’s powers of sale under the mortgage (see Wc Banking Corporarporation Ltd –v- Adi Mahesh Prasad (1999) 45 FLR 1;
A legal mortgagee’s right to possession is a common law right which is an incident of his estate in the land. It should not, in my opinion, be lightly treated as abrogated or restricted. Although it is perhaps most commonly exercised as a preliminary step to an exercise of the mortgagee’s power of sale, so that the sale may be made with vacant possession, this is not its only value to the mortgagee. The mortgagee may wish to protect his security: see Ex parte Wickens4. If, for instance, the mortgagor were to vacate the property, the mortgagee might wish to take possession to protect the place from vandalism. He might wish to take possession for the purpose of carrying out repairs or to prevent waste. Where the contractual date for repayment is so unusually long delayed as it was in this case, a power of this nature to protect his security might well be regarded as of particular value to the mortgagee.
U.L. Mohamed Azhar
Master of the High Court
At Lautoka
25.11.2021
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2021/322.html