The Appellant sought to quash a Securitisation Application allowing the demolition of a demand notice issued by the earlier creditor, DHFL. The tribunal held the appeal was successful.
S.A. No. 28 of 2018 stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Appeal No. 39/2019
Between
Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s.
Vivaswan Industries & Ors …Respondent/s Mr Rajesh Nagory, i/b Mrs Uma Fadia, Advocate for Appellant.
-: Order dated: 15/12/2023:-
The Appellant Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. is pursuing the appeal originally filed by Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. (DHFL) the original creditor which had lent money to the Respondents on a mortgage created to secure the loan. The Respondents filed Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 28 of 2018 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) under Sec. 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short) challenging the Sarfaesi measures initiated by DHFL. The S.A. was allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.05.2018. The Appellant is aggrieved and hence, in appeal.
DHFL is a housing finance company and is also a secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The first Respondent is a proprietorship represented by the third Respondent. On 04.03.2015, the secured asset was mortgaged by the third Respondent by executing a simple mortgage deed. The said loan was repaid, and thereafter, on
1
19.01.2016 a fresh loan for ₹11,53,50,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the Respondents on 27.01.2016. The earlier mortgage created on 04.03.2015 was agreed to be continued as security. The debt was to be repaid in 240 equated monthly instalments (EMIs) of ₹14,14,191/- each at 13.65% interest per annum subject to variation from time to time. A demand promissory note and loan agreement were executed on 27.01.2016.
2
3
13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is to be allowed. S.A. No. 28 of 2018 stands dismissed.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-01
4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the demand notice issued under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was vague and unsustainable for lacking a breakup of the amount due, including interest.
Whether the tribunal correctly quashed the demand notice under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the appeal filed by Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd. should be allowed or dismissed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Ltd.
Vivaswan Industries & Ors
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
10 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
