Disposed

PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Binta Jagshishkumar Joshi

DRAT13 Dec 2024MISC APPEAL/217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRTAI) disposed of an appeal challenging a DRT order granting protection against possession due to the borrower's death. The Tribunal set aside the protection by directing the impleadment of the insurance company, deeming the original order unsustainable without hearing the insurer on liability. The interim order was extended for one month.

What did the court decide?

The protection against possession was set aside subject to impleadment of the insurance company within one month.

PNB Housing Finance Limited versus Binta Jagshishkumar Joshi — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 217/2024

¶3

Between

¶4

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. V/s.

¶5

Binta J. Joshi

¶6

…Respondent/s

¶7

Mr Smit Shah, Advocate for Appellants. Mr Chetan Shah, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

-: Order dated: 13/12/2024:-

¶9

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the appellant for seeking urgent relief.

¶10

The appellant is the creditor financial institution which is aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2024 wherein the Debts Recovery TribunalIII, Mumbai (DRT) granted protection to the applicant in Securitisation Application (S.A.) at Diary No. 1766 of 2024 preventing the appellant from taking possession of the property because the principal borrower had died and the applicant was only the legal representative of the principal borrower. Since the entire debt is insured, it is the liability of the insurance company to pay the amount and not the legal representative, and hence, the applicant was entitled to protection, held the DRT. The appellant is aggrieved and hence, in appeal.

¶11

The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the insurance company is not made a party to the S.A. Without hearing the insurance

¶12

¶13

company and understanding the extent of the insurance that is available to the applicant in the S.A., an order precluding the appellant from taking possession under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act could not have been passed. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents herein agreed to take steps to implead the insurance company.

¶15

Therefore, an opportunity is granted to the respondent who is the applicant in the S.A. to take appropriate steps for impleading the insurance company, so that the insurance company will also be heard concerning the extent of liability on the insurance company. The interim order granted is extended for one month within which all the steps shall be completed before the DRT.

¶16

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

mks-33

¶19

PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Binta Jagshishkumar Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

PNB Housing Finance Limited v. Binta Jagshishkumar Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Surbhi Vatsal Somani versus Bank of Baroda

Sureshkumar Venkteshwaralu Gostu and Anr. versus the Yavatmal Urban Co. Op Bank Ltd. And Others

M/s Mm International versus pegasus assets reconstruction pruvarte limited

Karne Hospital Private Ltd. versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

Bansari Alloys Private Limited versus Indian Bank

Mr Sachin Tiwari and Anr. versus Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd.