Dismissed

Naresh Jain v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

DRT8 Sept 2022SA/337/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging demand and possession notices. The court held the applicant was estopped from raising grounds already decided in a prior application and failed to comply with a High Court interim order for depositing money.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; the Respondent FI is at liberty to proceed with recovery; the Authorized Officer was directed to appear on 28.09.2022 to explain non-compliance.

Naresh Jain versus PNB Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

SA/337/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No.- 337/2022

¶5

NARESH JAIN

¶6

S/o Sh. B.P. Jain, R/o 502, White House, Jawahar Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur

¶7

………Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

P.N.B. HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶10

Registered Address : 9^th Floor Antriksh Bhawan 22 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi AND/OR Corporate Office : at SB 59, First Floor UDB Tower, Opposite Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Tonk Road, Jaipur-15 through authorized officer/signatory.

¶11

..….. Respondent

¶12

Counsel –

¶13

Shri Vikas Somani, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Shri Ajay Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI

¶15

(Final Order) (07.09.2022)

¶16

This Securitization Application was filed on 30.05.202 along with copy of Order dt. 20.09.2021, passed by this Tribunal in SA No. 85/2021, titled as Naresh Jain Vs PNB Housing Finance Ltd. is also filed.

¶17

Physical Possession was taken on 04.05.2022 and so on 14.06.2022, Ld. counsel for Applicant prayed to direct the Respondent FI to not to issue any Auction Notice, as they want to settle the account for Rs. 42,00,000/-, so on 14.06.2022 a liberty was granted to SA Applicant to approach the Bank with an OTS/ Settlement proposal and

¶18

¶19

SA/337/2022

¶20

Respondent FI was also directed to decide the same.

¶21

On 20.07.2022, it was informed, by the Respondent FI that OTS proposal, given by the Applicant by hand and sent through Registered Post, has not been accepted.

¶22

On 03.08.2022, Respondent FI was directed to file reply along with outcome of OTS, as Respondent FI failed to file the same despite availing three opportunities. Following order was passed on 03.08.2022 –

¶23

“ In the present matter physical possession is with the Respondent FI and since 14.06.2022 the Respondent FI seeking time for filing reply but reply has not been filed till today. Copy of OTS proposal filed today, given by the Applicant to the Respondent FI int he light of directions issued by this Tribunal on the last date of hearing.

¶24

The Respondent FI is directed to file reply on or before 18.08.2022 by providing advance copy to Ld. counsel for the Applicant failing which a cost of Rs. 10,000/- shall be imposed upon the authorized officer of the Respondent FI who is authorized to file reply.

¶25

File be put up on 18.08.2022 before Registrar for filing reply as well as filing outcome of OTS proposal given by the SA Applicant.

¶26

With regard to 2 weeks advance notice in addition to 30 or 15 days mandatory sale notice shall continue till the next date of hearing.” 5. Despite abovesaid Order, reply to SA was not filed on 18.08.2022 and it was filed on 23.08.2022. Matter was finally heard as the OTS proposal was declined.

¶27

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶28

As admitted in para ‘X’ of the SA, it is admitted, that the Applicant challenged Demand Notice dt. 12.10.2020, Possession Notice dt. 21.10.2021 in SA No. 85/2021 were decided, so it is necessary to

¶29

¶30

SA/337/2022

¶31

have a look of Order dt. 20.09.2021 passed in said SA No. 85/2021 filed at Annexure-A/7.

¶32

From the perusal of Order dt. 21.01.2021, it is clear that the issue of Demand Notice dt. 12.10.2020, Possession Notice dt. 21.01.2021 has already been decided against the Applicant and this Order was challenged by the Applicant before Hon’ble High Court by filing Writ Petition – SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3633/2022.

¶33

9. In para ‘XI’ (page no. 11) of the SA, is having a reference of Order of Hon’ble High Court dt. 21.03.2022, claiming as an interim order in favour of Applicant directing him to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- within four weeks time, but no such copy of Order dt. 21.03.2022, is filed on record, though copy of Demand Draft for Rs. 15,00,000/- dt. 24.05.2022 is filed at Annexure10. So in the light of Order dt. 21.03.2022, if any , (as the Applicant failed to file copy of it) the Applicant was directed to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- within four weeks time from 21.03.202 but Demand Draft was got prepared on 24.05.2022, therefore, it is crystal clear that the Applicant failed to comply with the Order of Hon’ble High Court also whereas on 26.05.2022, he preferred to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to avail alternate remedy. Order dt. 26.05.2022, passed by Hon’ble High Court, is reproduced, for more clarity-

¶34

“Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to avail appropriate alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶35

The writ petition is dismissed with liberty as aforesaid.

¶36

Pending applications stands disposed of accordingly.”

¶37

From the above details it is clear that the SA Applicant, in simply giving assurance, he failed to

¶38

¶39

SA/337/2022

¶40

follow the directions issued by Hon’ble High Court to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- within four weeks time from 21.03.2022. Copy of order dt. 21.03.2022, is filed by Respondent FI is at Annexure-R/4 and relevant para is being reproduced hereunder for more clarity – “... Learned counsel submitted that eschewing legal issues involved in the case, he is ready and willing to repay the entire loan amount with interest provided he is furnished some reasonable time for it.

¶41

Issue notice of the writ petition as well as of stay application.

¶42

Rule is made returnable by five weeks. Notices be filed in two sets. One set of notices be sent through registered post with acknowledgement due. Steps to be taken within a week.

¶43

Heard learned counsel on interim relief.

¶44

Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by learned counsel, this Court deems it just and proper to stay the further recovery proceedings against the petitioner provided he deposits a sum of 15,00,000/- with the Respondents – PNB Housing Finance Limited within a period of four weeks from today.”

¶45

So, after having considered all facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the Applicant do not have any right to challenge any of the actions initiated by Respondent FI, as the same has already been decided in SA No. 85/2021. Demand Notice dt. 12.10.2020, which was withdrawn, lost it effectiveness and later on fresh Demand Notice dt.21.10.2020 (Annexure-R/1) was issued, so it is clear that the SA Applicant, failed to challenge the same.

¶46

Accordingly this SA is disposed as dismissed, as the Rule of Estoppels is applicable against the SA Applicant and he cannot be allowed to raise the grounds which has already been decided in SA No.

¶47

¶48

SA/337/2022

¶49

85/2021, Respondent FI is at liberty to proceed ahead, as per law, for recovery of outstanding amount.

¶50

As the Authorized Officer of the Respondent FI failed to file reply on 20.07.2022, on 03.08.2022 and on 18.08.2022, whereas there was a direction, that, if reply is not filed, cost of Rs. 10,000/- will be imposed upon the Authorized Officer, so the Authorized Officer is hereby directed to remain present on 28.09.2022 before this Tribunal and to file and affidavit, stating therein that the reasons of non-compliance of Order dt. 03.08.2022.

¶51

Put up on 28.09.2022, for compliance at 4 PM.

¶52

Copy of the order be given free to the parties concerned. File be placed before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record.

¶53

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

Naresh Jain v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Jain v. PNB Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Victory Meta Steel Enterprises Private Limited

M S Green Teak India Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Sh Kojaram

Hdfc Bank versus Shiv Bharti Sr Sec School

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sunil

Canara Bank versus M S New Shubh Laxmi Garments