Allowed

Tara Ram v. Reliance Home Finance Limited

DRT21 Jul 2022SA/351/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal addressed a securitization application challenging the recovery of a property by Reliance Home Finance Limited. The Tribunal held that a Demand Notice was not properly served and granted the applicant's prayer to restore possession, quashing pending actions.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application allowed; Demand Notice dated 11.04.2018 quashed; all actions by Respondent quashed; possession of property to be restored to Applicant.

Tara Ram versus Reliance Home Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

SA/351/2022

¶3

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

SA No.- 351/2022

TARA RAM

S/o Sh. Suja Ram

R/o 59, Ward No. 31, Khasra No. 1298/502, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Samdari Road, Balotra (Raj.)

¶8

………Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

RELIANCE HOME FINANCE LIMITED

¶11

Address – Reliance Home Finance Limited, 6^th Floor, Plot No. C-44, Man Upasana, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, through Authorized Officer.

¶12

..….. Respondent

¶13

Counsel –

¶14

Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Shri Pramod Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI

¶15

(Final Order)

¶16

(21.07.2022)

¶17

This Securitization Application was filed on 13.06.2022 and vide Order dt. 02.07.2022 prayer of restoration of possession was declined on account of poor history of repayment of EMI since 2016-17 till 2020-2021.

¶18

Applicant was willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 5.00 Lac and prayed for restoration of possession but prayer was opposed as the amount of pending

¶19

¶20

SA/351/2022

¶21

EMIs & interest was Rs. 8,55,000/- excluding other legal charges, so the matter was finally heard.

¶22

As per facts of the case, availing credit facility for Rs. 12,00,000/- at the rate of interest 11.75%, is admitted as per Welcome Letter at Annexure-I. Availing second credit facility for Rs. 2,00,000/- at the rate of interest 13.5%, is also admitted.

¶23

Default is admitted in para 4 of the SA and it is claimed that EMIs were being regularly paid but on account of COVID-19, default was occurred.

¶24

In para 5, it is submitted that during the year 2019 to 2022, Respondent FI, took money from the Applicant, which can be proved by Statement of Account at Annexure-4.

¶25

The Order U/s 14 dt. 16.12.2019, and possession notice dt. 26.05.2022, is challenged as malafide, illegal and against the provisions of law.

¶26

It is also one of the grounds as argued by Ld. counsel for Applicant that Demand Notice was never served upon them, Possession Notice was not published in two leading newspapers, Possession Notice was issued by an Officer, who is not authorized, Possession was taken in the absence of Applicant and amount of EMI was increased illegally.

¶27

It was also argued that the amount as claimed as outstanding is very high & exorbitant, so it was

¶28

¶29

SA/351/2022

¶30

prayed that all the actions initiated by Respondent FI are required to be quashed and set aside.

¶31

Ld. counsel for Respondent FI strongly objected each and every ground taken by SA Applicant and argued that Demand Notice was issued on 11.04.2018 and it was duly served upon the Applicant, in the light of postal receipts and track report filed at Annexure-R/2.

¶32

Ld. counsel further submitted that the Applicant is a defaulter and no regular EMI were paid by them since 2016-2017, most of the cheques, given for payment were bounced and so physical possession was taken as per law. So, it was argued that the SA is to be dismissed with heavy cost.

¶33

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶34

On perusal of copy of Demand Notice dt. 11.04.2018 at Annexure-R/2, filed by the Respondent FI along with reply, it is clear that the said Demand Notice dt. 11.04.2018 is having signature of Authorized Signatory but, at last page it is Authorized Officer, so the objection that the Demand Notice was issued by Authorized Signatory is not liable to be accepted and hence rejected.

¶35

Further, in order to consider the issue of service of Demand Notice dt. 11.04.2018 upon the Applicant, it is necessary to go through with the Postal Receipts & Track Report, filed by the

¶36

¶37

SA/351/2022

¶38

Respondent FI at Annexure-R/2. On perusal of the said document, Demand Notice dt. 11.04.2018 is not found to be served upon the Applicant, because as per Track Report filed by the Respondent FI along with Demand Notice, there is a remark of ‘Item delivery attempted INSUFICIENT ADDRESS ” on 13.04.2018. If the Demand Notice was not served upon the Applicant on account “insufficient address”, then Applicant is not responsible for the same.

¶39

14.

¶40

¶41

Further, it is not clear that why did the Respondent FI took possession of the subject mortgaged property on 26.05.2022, with a delay of almost 2 and half years as the Respondent FI obtained Order of District Magistrate, 16.12.2019.

¶42

I, therefore, of the considered view that the Respondent FI failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as Demand Notice was not served upon the Applicant personally and so the Securitization Application, filed by the Applicant is liable to be allowed. The Demand Notice dt. 11.04.2018 issued by the Respondent FI is hereby quashed and set aside and further actions taken by the Respondent FI are also quashed and set aside. Respondent FI is directed to restore the possession of the subject property to the Applicant.

¶43

¶44

SA/351/2022

¶45

16. Applicant has submitted two Demand Drafts amounting to Rs. 4.50 Lac (DD No. 0126576 of Rs. 4.00 Lac and DD No. 026577 of Rs. 50,000/-) before this Tribunal. Registry is hereby directed to handover the said DDs to the Authorized

¶46

Officer of the Respondent FI.

¶47

Accordingly, this Securitization Application, stands disposed of as allowed. 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.

¶48

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

Tara Ram v. Reliance Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tara Ram v. Reliance Home 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

Priya Vaishnav versus Union Bank of India

Om Prakash Kumawat versus Hero Housing Finance Ltd.

M S Nkb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Dharam Chand Jain versus Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Sita Devi versus Laxmi India Finleasecap Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Pramod Dhar versus Punjab National Bank