Partly allowed

Manbahr Kanwar v. Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

DRT14 Jun 2023SA/107/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant family challenged recovery actions taken against deceased co-applicant Dhan Singh. The Presiding Officer set aside prior actions initiated in the name of the deceased and directed the Respondent to take fresh proceedings in the name of legal heirs under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Earlier actions against the deceased set aside. Respondent directed to issue fresh demand notices to legal heirs and proceed with recovery under SARFAESI Act.

Manbahr Kanwar versus Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. — Service and Employment | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA No. 107/2023

¶3

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

¶4

SA No. 107/2023

¶5

Manbhar Kanwar W/o late Shri Dhan Singh , resident of House No. 313. ZSB BJS Colony, Kachery, Jodhpur, PIN 342006( Rajasthan)

¶6

Deependra Singh S/o late Shri Dhan Singh, resident of House No. 313, ZSB BJS Colony, Kachery, Jodhpur, PIN 342006( Rajasthan)

¶7

Geeta Kanwar D/o late Shri Dhan Singh aged about years, resident of House No. 313, ZSB BJS Colony, Kachery, Jodhpur, PIN 342006(Rajasthan)

¶8

Chandan Kanwar D/o late Shri Dhan Singh aged about years, resident of House No. 313, ZSB BJS Colony, Kachery, Jodhpur, PIN 342006( Rajasthan)

¶9

APPLICANTS

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

1 . Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Om Saraswati Tower, First Floor, OS Moters Ki Gali, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur34311 (Rajasthan) through its Authorized Officer

¶12

Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Unit No. 203 & 204, Second Floor, A Wing, Navbharat Estate, Zakaria Bunder Marg, Sewri West, Mumbai-400015 through its Managing Director.

RESPONDENTS

Present:

Sh. Ganesh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶18

Sh. Sharad Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI

¶19

(Final Order)

¶20

(14.06.2023)

¶21

This SA was filed by SA applicant namely Mrs. Manbhar Kanwar wife of Late Sh. Dhan Singh Rawat and by Mr. Deependra Singh and Mrs. Geeta Kanwar and Mrs Chandan Kanwar sons and daughters of late Sh. Dhan Singh Rawat, who obtained the credit facility from the Respondent FI but expired on 17.02.2022.

¶22

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that demand notice was issued on 22.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) and in objection to the said Demand Notice dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure P/5) they informed to the Respondent Bank that Mr. Dhan Singh Rawat expired on 17.02.2022.

¶23

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant further submitted that despite getting knowledge of death of Late Sh. Dhan Singh Rawat, the Respondent FI issued possession notice on 22.12.2022 (Annexure P-7) in the name of Sh. Dhan Singh Rawat as a co-applicant and therefore he submitted that the possession notice as well as all the further cause of actions initiated by Respondent FI are against a dead person, so actions initiated by the Respondent FI are required to be quashed and set aside.

¶24

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent while filing reply to SA strongly objected the grounds taken by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and he submitted that the SA applicant Mrs. Manbhar Kanwar is also one of the applicant in the credit facility which was

¶25

¶26

¶27

obtained by Mr. Moti Singh Shekhawat and Mr. Dhan Singh Rawat her husband in the capacity of co-applicant.

¶28

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI further submitted that SA applicant failed to inform about the fact that Mr. Dhan Singh Co-borrower, expired on 17.02.2022, therefore they have not committed any illegality while demand notice was issued on 22.08.2022 in the name of Mr. Dhan Singh as co-applicant.

¶29

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI also pointed out that main borrower/applicant Mr. Moti Singh Shekhawat and Saroj Kanwar failed to object any of the actions initiated by the Respondent FI and this is a fact that the credit facility was sanctioned in favour of the SA applicant also and after getting knowledge of death of Mr. Dhan Singh, they have not taken any action.

¶30

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶31

It is a fact that Mrs. Manbhar Kanwar, applicant no. 1 is one of the co-applicant of the credit facility was availed by two other applicants and it is also a fact that property situated at house no. 313, ZSB, BJS colony, Jodhpur owned by Mr. Dhan Singh was mortgaged with the Respondent FI.

¶32

Mr. Dhan singh expired on 17.02.2022 but his fact was not informed by any of the applicant/co-applicant to Respondent FI, therefore there was nothing illegal, if the demand notice was issued on 22.07.2022, having name of Mr. Dhan Singh, now SA is filed by family members of Late Sh. Dhan Singh, SA applicant Manbhar Kanwar is also wife of co-applicant so liability is upon her also to repay the outstanding amount.

¶33

¶34

¶35

Now the SA applicant is coming with a ground that she is not having knowledge of applying any loan by Late Sh. Dhan Singh or by herself, she do not have any knowledge that how they were impleaded as a co-applicant in the credit facility, so sanctioned in favour of Mr. Moti Singh Shekhawat but considering the fact that the Respondent FI filed on record the documents, statement of account and so the SA applicant in the capacity of co-applicant with other borrowers is now liable to pay the outstanding amount but I am of the view that Respondent FI is required to take fresh actions under the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002.

¶36

Therefore the earlier actions initiated by the Respondent FI are required to be set aside as these actions were against a dead person, therefore the SA stands disposed of.

¶37

Now the Respondent FI is having details of legal heirs of Late Sh. Dhan Singh, who are applicant no. 2, 3 and 4, they are at liberty to issue fresh demand notice as well as per law and to proceed ahead further for recovery of amount strictly as per under the provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002

¶38

SA stands disposed of with the above said observations.

¶39

Copy of the order be given free to the concerned parties.

¶40

File be place before Registrar for compliance, after compliance file be consigned to record as per rules.

¶41

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶42

Manbahr Kanwar v. Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manbahr Kanwar v. Vastu Housing Finance Corporation 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

Sandeep Jhanwar versus Reliagre Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Govind Hari Dixit versus Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Harphool Yadav

State Bank of India versus Sh Bhagirath Ram

Icici Bank Limited versus Nishan Singh

Laxmi Rathore versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd.