Allowed

Ms Shri Gayatri Sales v. Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

DRT24 Aug 2022SA/101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Special Appeal of loan applicants against the Urban Co-operative Bank. The court held that the Securitisation proceedings were not well and legal due to lack of proof regarding service of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4). The applicants were granted three months to pay the loan amount.

What did the court decide?

Applicants granted three months to pay the loan amount; Respondent to start Securitisation proceedings afresh with fresh notices.

Ms Shri Gayatri Sales versus Urban Co. operative… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶4

DATED THE 24^th DAY OF August , 2022

¶5

SA/101/2022 M/S SHRI GAYATRI SALES AND ANOTHER VS URBAN CO OPERATIVE BNAK LTD

¶6

M/s Shri Gayatri Sales, Address at: Gohana Road, Near Rama Form Bhandar, through its Sole Proprietor, Mukund Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Suresh Chandra Sharma, Resident of House No. 1333, Sector-14, Sonepat, Haryana-131001

¶7

Sh. Mukund Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Suresh Chandra Sharma, Resident of House No. 1333, Sector-14, Sonepat, Haryana131001, Mobile Phone: 9991725305

¶8

…Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. The Sonepat Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Sabji Mandi, Sonepat

¶11

…Respondent

¶12

Argued by : Sh. Rakesh Singh Chauhan, and Sh. Vijender Bhardwaj, counsel for the appellant along with appellant in person Sh. Manbir Singh, counsel for respondent bank

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In brief, it is the case of the SA applicants that loan of Rs.7,50,000/was availed of from the respondent bank; that the bank never made any demand for return of the loan amount; that on 04.01.2022 the applicants sent a letter through registered post as well as by hand and on the same day, at about 6.30 p.m., applicants received a call from Receiver Dhouchak and he served a notice to the applicants for taking possession of secured assets and then he came to know that order dated 15.12.2021, was passed by learned CJM Sonipat; that facts were hidden

¶15

SA/101/2022 MS SHRI GAYATRI SALES Vs URBAN CO OPERATIVE BNAK LTD

¶16

¶17

from the Court of CJM, Sonipat, in order to grab the order dated 15.12.2021; that applicants had mortgaged his property in loan account of Rs.7.5 lacs; that bank officials forged and fabricated documents with regard to which a complaint was filed before Police Station which was pending adjudication; that the bank guarantee was made as a performance guarantee which was not as per the law and RBI Guidelines; that performance guarantee was changed into financial guarantee; that the respondent also did not serve the legal notice after declaring the account NPA on 31.03.2015; that notices under Section 13(3) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) were not served; that on the complaint of the applicants, FIR No.239 of 2015 was registered; that applicants were ready to amicably settle the loan with the respondent bank; that applicants were ready to deposit the loan amount as per directions of this Tribunal; that applicants were ready to deposit the outstanding amount, but the respondent failed to supply the information sought vide letter dated 04.01.2022; that the applicants filed a Civil Suit against the respondent bank; that the respondent directed to deposit full and final amount; that no notice was served upon the applicants till date and respondent sent letter dated 21.01.2022 for settlement demanding Rs.13 lacs upon which this Tribunal was approached.

¶18

In reply to the SA, it was contended that the SA was barred by limitation; that SA was filed on 06.06.2022; that the applicants admitted the liability and expressed readiness to make payment which was sought; that it was a case of admitted liability and thus, SA was liable to be dismissed; that applicants mortgaged plot No.329, measuring 100 square yards, situated in Siddhartha Enclave, Sonepat, with the respondent bank; that Traders’ Cash Credit limit of Rs.7.5 lacs was availed of by the applicants and it was never got renewed; that the applicants became NPA on 31.03.2015; that on 04.03.2012 (04.03.2014), the applicants

¶19

SA/101/2022 MS SHRI GAYATRI SALES Vs URBAN CO OPERATIVE BNAK LTD

¶20

¶21

applied to the bank for issuance of a bank guarantee of Rs.10 lacs for one year in favor of M/s M Tech. Informatics Limited which was allowed against FD of Rs.3,00,000/- plus security of mortgaged property of Rs.30,00,00,000/- which was already mortgaged with the bank for TCC of Rs.7.5 lacs; that applicants deposited Rs.3,00,000/- on 04.03.2014 with the bank for FDR of Rs.3,00,000/-; that FDR was not annexed; that since Urban Cooperative Bank could not issue performance bank guarantee, it issued financial bank guarantee; that applicants did not raise any objection against the issuance of the bank guarantee; that the applicants made complaint dated 17.11.2014 to the police in which there was not even a whisper against the Officers/Directors of the bank or the officials of the bank; that in order to avoid the loan liability, applicants were trying to involve Sh. Vinod Jain, the then, CEO of the bank and Sh. S.K. Jain, the then, Chairman of the bank Sh. Kailash Chand, the then, Director of the applicant bank who were not named in the complaint; that after the investigation, police found CEO, Chairman and Director of the bank innocent; that there was no forgery of any document by the bank officials; that matter regarding encashment of the bank guarantee was pending before the Civil Court; that possession was taken in accordance with law; that applicants applied for sale of the mortgaged property; that notice of the sale of the mortgaged property was issued on 10.02.2016, applicants submitted in writing to the respondent bank that applicants would clear their dues by 31.03.2016, but no amount was deposited by the applicants which led to issuance of notice dated 27.02.2018 for sale of the property on 03.04.2018; that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act , was issued to the applicants on 04.02.2021; that notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act was issued to the applicants under Registered Post on the addresses given by the applicants to the bank and thereafter, proceedings under Section 14 of the Act, were initiated which led to passing of order dated 15.12.2021; that

¶22

SA/101/2022 MS SHRI GAYATRI SALES Vs URBAN CO OPERATIVE BNAK LTD

¶23

¶24

on 04.01.2022, a letter was written by the applicants stating that they were ready to settle the loan account; that CC limit was Rs.7.5 lacs’ that after availing of CC limit, no amount was paid by the applicants; that applicants had to deposit the margin money for issuance of bank guarantee of Rs.10 lacs for which they paid Rs.3,00,000/- for FDR and bank guarantee was issued; that bank had issued financial guarantee not performance guarantee; that notice of possession was published in the newspaper of “Punjab Kesari” and also it was served through registered post; that sale notices were published in newspaper on 20.06.2022 and the notice was also received by the applicants personally on 22.06.2022.

¶25

Replication was filed wherein the averments made in the OA were reiterated and that of the written statement were controverted.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

¶27

It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, was not served. Counsel for the respondent bank argued that notice under Section 13(2) was served. It was argued that the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act were sent through registered post. There is no track consignment record and also receipt of the RC has not been attached with the documents attached with the reply. Learned counsel for the applicants pointed that in para No.1 of Annexure R12 dated 04.02.2021, i.e., notice under Section 13(2) of the Act the agreement dated 24.02.1999 and 21.03.2003 were mentioned and it was mentioned that there was business of plywood Trading etc. There was no explanation for this from the bank in this regard.

¶28

No other point was urged before this Tribunal.

¶29

In view of the above discussion, everything cannot be said to be well and legal with the Securitisation proceedings. There is hardly any record showing that notices were sent under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act.

¶30

SA/101/2022 MS SHRI GAYATRI SALES Vs URBAN CO OPERATIVE BNAK LTD

¶31

¶32

In the relief clause, the relief sought are vague. In fact, the SA is marred by vague pleadings and with great struggle this Tribunal could reach the conclusion as to what the applicants were saying and demanding.

¶33

It has also been mentioned in the relief clause that the applicants want to pay loan amount as per direction of this Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, SA is allowed. However, the respondent shall be at liberty to start proceedings of Securitisation afresh by issuing fresh notices under Section 13(2) of the Act.

¶34

The applicants are granted time of three months from today to pay the amount of loan if they are interested to pay the same. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.

¶35

Announced in the open Tribunal

¶36

(M.M.Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Ms Shri Gayatri Sales v. Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Shri Gayatri Sales v. Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

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

Bank of India versus Mahesh Dhirajlal Shah

Bank of India versus Fanindra

Bank of India versus Babulal

Ms Lakshmiji Traders and others versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Sl Enterprises

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S J K Enterprises and Ors.