Dismissed

The Authorised Officer Aptus Value Hosuing Finance India Ltd. v. Mrs Vedhanayagi v

DRAT29 Jan 2025REGULAR APPEAL/28/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act dismissing the revision application was filed by the debt recovery tribunal. The appellate tribunal found that the lower court correctly held that no order can be passed against a dead person as legal representatives were not impleaded. The appeal was dismissed affirming the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act was dismissed, and the impugned order confirming the stay of proceedings was confirmed.

The Authorised Officer Aptus Value Hosuing Finance India Ltd… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 29^th day of January, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶4

RA (SA) 28/2023

¶5

(arising out of TSA 145/2022 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai )

¶6

Between

¶7

The Authorised Officer, Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd. 8B, Doshi Tower, No.205, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.

¶8

…..Appellant

¶9

And Mrs. Vedhanayagi V. W/o Late Mr. Vijayan, No.3/23, Bazar Street, Lalpet Village & Post, Walajah Taluk, Vellore 632 405.

¶10

…..Respondent

¶11

Counsel for appellant : Shri V.P. Parivallal Counsel for Respondent : None

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This appeal is filed under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act challenging the order

¶14

dated 28.2.2023 passed in TSA No.145/2022 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai.

¶15

Learned Counsel for Appellant Institution submitted that the Respondent

¶16

herein filed TSA 145/2022 challenging the order passed under Section 14 of

¶17

¶18

SARFAESI Act, 2002, by the District Collector, Vellore. TSA was allowed mainly for the reason that the LRs of deceased borrower were not impeladed. Thus, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in re S. Suhaina Banu Vs. Indian Bank, reported in MANU/TN/3149/2010 , Tribunal held that the proceedings against the property of the deceased borrower is not permissible under law and allowed the Application. In continuation of his submissions, he submitted that the ruling relied on by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai, is mainly for the reason that, the aggrieved parties, who are LRs of deceased borrower, were not brought on record; whereas, in the case on hand, the Respondent is also one of the co-applicants. In fact, she is the owner, and her husband, borrower, is not the owner. Therefore, the aforesaid ruling is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶19

On a perusal of records, this Tribunal finds that the Application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, was filed against i) Mr. Vijayan, ii) Mrs. Vedhanayagi V and iii) Mr. Raja. E. It is submitted by the Counsel for Appellant that when the application was filed, Mr. Vajayan was alive, and when the order was passed on 16.09.2019, Mr. Vijayan was already dead. When this Tribunal put a question to Learned Counsel for Appellant as to how an order can be passed against a dead person and how can it be enforced, Learned Counsel for Appellant sought time for filing materials in support of his submissions.

¶20

¶21

When the matter is called again today i.e., 29.1.2025 for filing relevant material and for continuation of arguments, Ld. Counsel for appellant has not produced any material in support of his submissions made on 11.12.2024. There is no representation for respondent.

¶22

It is clearly brought out from the facts elicited and the order of the Ld. Presiding Officer dated 28.2.2023 that after the death of Mr. Vijayan, his LRs have not been impleaded as parties to the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and without impleadment, order has been passed.

¶23

It is a settled proposition of law that no order can be passed against a dead person. Therefore, this Tribunal finds no reason to interfere with the finding of the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai and confirms the order dated 28.2.2023 passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai in TSA No.145/2022.

¶24

In the result, Appeal RA(SA) 28/2023 is dismissed.

¶25

Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶26

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 29^th Day of January, 2025)

¶27

Sd/(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶28

The Authorised Officer Aptus Value Hosuing Finance India Ltd. v. Mrs Vedhanayagi v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Authorised Officer Aptus Value Hosuing Finance India Ltd. v. Mrs Vedhanayagi v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

A.O., Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. versus Mr.M.Mohan & Ors.

Mrs.R.Chitra versus Indian Bank & Anr.

K Venkateswarlu and K.Syamala versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Union Bank of India versus Ms Sree Lakshmi Engineering Co. and Ors.

Mrs Selvi versus Messers Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Noel Anthuvan versus Repco Home finance Limited

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

A.O., Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. versus Mr.M.Mohan & Ors.

Mrs.R.Chitra versus Indian Bank &amp; Anr.

K Venkateswarlu and K.Syamala versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Union Bank of India versus Ms Sree Lakshmi Engineering Co. and Ors.

Mrs Selvi versus Messers Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Noel Anthuvan versus Repco Home finance Limited

Mrs.R.Chitra versus Indian Bank & Anr.