Dismissed

Mr Laxman Shashikant Kalal and Mrs Hemlata Shashikant Kalal v. Axis Bank

DRT11 Oct 2022SA/148/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Special Appeal and Interim Application, applicants challenging the bank's possession takeover and seeking EMI restructuring were dismissed. The Appellate Tribunal held the bank's actions under the SARFAESI Act legal, finding the account duly classified as NPA and procedures compliant.

What did the court decide?

Parts of Special Appeal No. 148 of 2022 (dressmaking) Irievedgur, and Interim Application No. 2192 of 2022 were disposed of without granting any relief to the applicants, including the restructuring p

Mr Laxman Shashikant Kalal and Mrs Hemlata Shashikant Kalal… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

•``}

¶2

Before Arun Kumar Singal, Presiding Officer DRT - Ill, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.

¶3

S.A. No. 148 of 2022

¶4

and

¶5

I.A. No. 2192 of 2022

¶6

S.A. Instituted on 08.07.2022 I.A. Instituted on 07.10.2022 Decided on 11.10.2022

¶7

Mr. Laxman Shashikant Kalal

¶8

Age. 33, Occ. Service

¶9

Ms. Hemlata Laxman

¶10

Age. 30, Occ. Househo

¶11

R/at: Flat No. 19,

¶12

CIDCO, Nashik

¶13

dium Regiment, asthan

•..Applicants

V/s

Axis Bank Ltd.

Through Authorized Officer,

¶18

Office lst Floor, Mazada Towers,

¶19

GPO Road, Trambak Naka Nashik

....Respondent

D(r\ . \ o '" 2`1

I.\jELt_l.`Llti-

Mr.PrajitShane,counselforApplicants. Mr.AlokMishra,counselforRespondentBank.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This order of nrine shall dispose of the Appl 2192 of 2022) as well as Securitization of 2022.

¶26

Vide present Secur±tfsat±omffi have sought the relief tha restructure the EMI's 19, 2nd Floor adman

¶27

be directed to amount of Flat No. rea 575 sq. ft. i.e. 53.43 styled as ``Shubham Park'' of Survey No. 296/03 at mauje (The said property and impugned 2inrespectofpossessionofsaidproperty set aside being illegal, unsustainable and

¶28

sq. meter in

¶29

Also, the Applicant Bank has sought the relief that possession notice dt. 01.07.2022 in respect of and/or to the extent of the said flats be quashed and set aside. Tehsildar

¶30

ty:i:Stra±nedfromtaking2anyfurtheractionfortaki:g \1,\orpe2J2-

¶31

physical possession and Respondent Bank be also restrained from conducting an auction, confirmation of sale, issuance of sale certificate or handing over physical possession of the said flat to the auction purchaser and/or from issuance and conduction fresh auction notice.

¶32

Also vide Interim Application, the the relief that the Respondent 8anca restrained from executing and to maintain status-quo

¶33

09.2022

¶34

The Applicants have

¶35

had been ondent Bank and had onally. However, they were e to their financial difficulty in er, 2021 onwards the Applicants paying the same.

¶36

paying regular E never neglected unable

¶37

Respondent Bank issued possession notice dt. 18 and the same was affixed on front door of the said property and that notice came to the knowledge of the Applicants in year 2019 and Applicants approached the Respondent Bank on 12.12.2019 and paid Rs. 91,500/towards balance EMI's. The Respondent Bank regularised

¶38

¶39

\ \ . ' o . 2fo2,1

¶40

the EMI's of the Applicants and inspite of the same, order under Sec. 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was obtained from Collector, whereas, that notice was passed in absence of the Applicantswithoutissuinganynoticetothem.

¶41

According to Applicants, they reside in occasionally used to visit Nashik on holi their visit in June 2022, they ca

¶42

proceedings regarding Respondent Bank against

¶43

issued dt. 23.06.2022

¶44

notice was affixed on front

¶45

door of said property

¶46

¶47

pplication I.A. No. 1320 of uritisation Application for stay of order dt. 01.04.2022 passed by shik and the impugned possession notice 92r issued by Ld. Tehsildar and the same was fbythisTribunal.

¶48

According to Applicant in pursuance of the aforesaid order dt. 21.07.2022 passed by this Tribunal, the Respondent Bank was to give 15 days prior notice before taking possession of the said property but once again - o(

¶49

¶50

1 , \D r2-o}L

¶51

Tehsildar issued possession notice dt. 21.09.2022 for taking possession of said property on 11.10.2022.

¶52

The action of the Bank is highly illegal as the Applicants never defaulted and accordingly prayed for acceptance of this S.A. as well as I.A.

¶53

The counsel for Respondent 8 opposed the contentions of the

¶54

ank~k,as

¶55

prayed for dismissal of this APF!

¶56

This Tribunal

¶57

arguments advanced and has gone

¶58

to the for the parties dS`rfuentsplacedonrecord.

¶59

It is

¶60

of the Applicants that they but due to financial difficulty they could EMI's and they deposited Rs. 91,500/- on |Sand the EMI's of the Applicants were regularise in documents placed on record, it can be seen that account of the Applicants was already classified as NPA on dt. 11.03.2018 and demand notice under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 29.08.2018. So, once account was classified, there is no further order passed by

¶61

\ , \ D .2"2-2-

¶62

i.!

¶63

the Respondent Bank showing that EMI's of the Applicants were regularized by the Respondent Bank.

¶64

Since, the Applicants failed to adhere to the financial disciplines of the Bank, so, order under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act was rightly obtained by theR Bank from Collector of Nashik.

¶65

Earlier also notice

¶66

;sion was could not assistance was present notice dt. ie Tehsildar and possession

¶67

issued by Tehsildar but be taken on 21.07.2022

¶68

not available to present notice dt. 21.09.2022 has ie Tehsildar and possession < is fixed for tod not find any illegality in the procedure pondent Bank. The Respondent Bank is as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶69

The account of Applicants was rightly classified as NPA and thereafter, demand notice was issued on 29.08.2018 and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 91,500/- paid on 12.12.2019,

¶70

¶71

\ ' \ D '2J,2-2-

¶72

must have been adjusted by the Respondent Bank in the overdue amount.

¶73

The Applicants failed to point out any illegality in the procedure adopted by the Respondent Bank in taking physical possession of the said property wbich recovering the outstanding balance Bank from the Applicants.

¶74

So far as, restructuring of concerned, the Applicants can Bank and make prayer which d by the Bank after taking into co afide of the Applicants. 20. Since, 22 as well as Application (I.A. No. devoid of merit, so, same are hereby other pending I.As. also stand disposed no order as to cost.

¶75

:..\i,';....``.J-."....1.

¶76

P.O. DRT - Ill

Mr Laxman Shashikant Kalal and Mrs Hemlata Shashikant Kalal v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Laxman Shashikant Kalal and Mrs Hemlata Shashikant Kalal v. Axis Bank

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

Ms Citizen Textiles versus Bombay Mecantile Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Anil Karbhari (Khabu) Naik (Bhoi)

Vipul Babulal Soni versus Icici Bank Limited

M/s Ashirwad Builders through sole proprietor Santosh Thakur versus Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited

Ms Citizen Textiles versus Bombay Mecantile Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Mahadev Hari Sarmalkar versus Icici Bank Limited