Dismissed

Amool Shivaji Rokade v. The Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

DRT5 Jun 2023SA/102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought interim relief to restrain the respondent from taking possession of property based on a demand notice allegedly issued by a subordinate officer and lacking affidavit verification. The court dismissed the application, finding the issuing officer was a Chief Manager in 2019, thus compliant with rules, and noting the relevant record was available to the Civil Magistrate.

What the court decided

AI extract

Amool Shivaji Rokade versus The Housing Development Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

I.A. No.2018/2023 S.A. No. 102 /2023

¶2

05/06/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai I.A.No.2018/2023 *SA 102 of 2023* *Amool Shivaji Rokade Vs The Housing* *Development Finance Corporation Ltd.*	Next date
		Advocate Robin T. and Advocate Praful M. appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Shreesh Oak i/b SC Legal appeared for the Defendant.
		I.A.No.2018/2023
		1. By way of the present I.A. the
		Applicant is praying to restrain the respondent from taking any further
		steps/measures in furtherance to
		notice dt.20/05/2023 received on
		21/05/2023 issued by the Judicial Clerk 4^thCourt, Girgaon, Mumbai,
		Flat No.402, 4^thFloor, Kinjal Heaven,
		S.No. CTS No. 357, Wadia Street,
		Near Mumbai 400 034 (hereinafter
		referred as “Property in question”).

¶3

I.A. No.2018/2023

¶4

S.A. No. 102 /2023

¶5

2.	Ld. Counsel for the Applicant
	submits that the Demand Notice
	dt.16/04/2019 issued by an
	authorised officer who was the
	‘Manager’ only, whereas as per Rule
	2(A) of the Security Interest Rules,
	2002, Authorised Officer means the
	officer not less than ‘Chief Manager’.
	Thus, he submits the Demand Notice
	u/S 13(2) is required to be quashed
	being void. Thus, further action of
	the Respondent shall also get vitiated automatically.
3.	He also submits that there is no
	verification of the document in the
	affidavit filed before the Ld. CMM
	by the authorised officer of the
	Respondent Financial Institutions
	and absence of the said verification,
	the proceeding u/S 14 is not
	sustainable and thus, the impugned
	notice which is issued in pursuance

¶6

I.A. No.2018/2023 S.A. No. 102 /2023

¶7

to the order u/S 14 of the SARFAESI
Act, 2002, will also to be set aside.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant also
stated that the Applicant has already
deposit Rs.20.14 Lakhs to the
Respondent Financial Institutions
and today also Applicant is ready
with a pay order of Rs.10 Lakhs and thus he submits the Respondent may
be restrain from taking the
possession of the property in
question.
5. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for the
Respondent strongly objected to the
present I.A. and submits that the
Applicant is not a bonafide person. He also submitted that the total dues
against the Applicant is more than
Rs. 2,28,11,265/- therefore, in case
the Applicant is interested to deposit
the dues, thus, he may be directed to
deposit the sufficient amount.

¶8

I.A. No.2018/2023 S.A. No. 102 /2023

¶9

He also informed that the Demand Notice was issued by the Chief Manager only. He also submits that the Applicant is relying a list of officer which pertains to the year 2005 at that time the authorised officer was a manager, however, the Demand Notice was issued in the year 2019 and the concerned officer was Chief Manager at that time of issuance of the Demand Notice u/S 13(2) SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶10

He also stated that the order u/S 14 is obtained in compliance with the Rule and provisions thereto. Thus, he submits the present I.A. may be dismissed.

¶11

Having heard rivals contention of the parties and gone through the record.

¶12

Insofar as, the objection pertaining to the Demand Notice is concerned, the

¶13

I.A. No.2018/2023 S.A. No. 102 /2023

¶14

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent	has
duly informed that the Author	ised
Officer was a chief manager in 2	019,
therefore, the objection taken by Applicant is hereby declined.	the
10. As far as, objection to	the
verification of the document	is
concerned, since the relev	ant
information/record is already be	ing
provided to CMM Mum	bai,
therefore,_prima facie_I find no m in the said objection.	erit
11. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant st	ated
that the Applicant is ready to dep	osit
the dues of the Respondent	FI.
However, Ld. Counsel for	the
Respondent FI submitted the offe	r to
deposit only Rs 10 lakh by Applicant, is not acceptable, as	the the
same is much less than the dues.

¶15

I.A. No.2018/2023 S.A. No. 102 /2023

¶16

In view of the above, the present Interim Relief Application is hereby dismissed. P.O. DRT-I

¶17

SP/-1

Amool Shivaji Rokade v. The Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Amool Shivaji Rokade v. The Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipesh Kabra Binodkumar versus South Indian Bank

Mr Shekhar Mennon versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Seema

Ms a B Waluj versus Recovery Officer Drt I

Manoj Kumar Sharma versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Mr Sandeep Thadeshwar versus Iifl Home Finance Ltd.