Dismissed

Surendra Singh Inda v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

DRT29 May 2023SA/112/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a statute application challenging the service of demand and possession notices. It observed that while notices were properly served on the applicants, the respondent must now notify the legal heirs of the deceased co-borrower before auctioning the property.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were dismissed, but the Respondent was directed to notify the legal heirs of the deceased co-applicant before proceeding with an auction.

Surendra Singh Inda versus Cholamandalam Investment and… — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

SA No. 112/2022

¶3

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

¶4

SA No. 112/2022

¶5

1. Surendra Singh Inda S/o Sh. Kalyan Singh, R/o Part of Shardul Bhawan, Churaha Kaga Road, Haveli, Nagori Gate, Jodhpur-342001

¶6

2. Smt. Bina Pal Inda W/o Sh. Surendra Singh Inda, R/o Part of Shardul Bhawan, Churaha Kaga Road, Haveli, Nagori Gate, Jodhpur-342001 (Rajasthan)

¶7

………Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor, Sankhla Arcade, New Sanganer Road, Roop Vihar, Goverdhan Colony, Shiva Colony, Vivek Vihar, Jaipur-302019, through its Authorized Officer.

¶10

..….. Respondent

¶11

Present:

¶12

Sh. Kirti Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Sh. Atul Saxena, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶13

(Final Order)

¶14

(29.05.2023)

¶15

This SA was filed on 05.03.2022 and reply to the SA was filed on 28.04.2023.

¶16

As per SA, availing credit facility and mortgage of the property is admitted.

¶17

Physical possession was taken in the month of November 2021, as stated in Para 5.7 of the SA.

¶18

¶19

¶20

Ld. Counsel argued that Ms. Lalita Kanwar, coborrower expired on 01.05.2021 but even then Respondent FI, continued actions against here and they failed to give notice to LR’s of Late Mrs. Lalita Kanwar.

¶21

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI argued that intimation of death of Late Smt. Lalita Kanwar was never informed to them, so there was no need to serve notice to LR’s of Late Smt. Lalita Kanwar.

¶22

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶23

The applicants were served with the Demand Notice on 26.09.2019, so it is not a matter of non delivery of Demand Notice, upon the applicants.

¶24

SA applicant failed to point out any material illegality in Demand and in Possession Notice and from the reply it is clear that these two notices were dully served & executed.

¶25

Considering the documents, so placed on record, SA stands disposed of as dismissed and Respondent FI is now at liberty to proceed ahead as per law.

¶26

As of now it is within the knowledge of Respondent FI that Co-applicant Mrs. Lalita Kanwar is no more, so in my considered opinion, Respondent FI is required to take necessary steps, before issuing any Auction Notice of the subject mortgaged property, as one of the co-applicant is no more and right of legal heirs of late Mrs. Lalita Kanwar should not be adversely affecte6d.

¶27

Copy of this order be given free to the parties.

¶28

Put up before Registrar for compliance, after compliance file be consigned to record as per rules.

¶29

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶30

Surendra Singh Inda v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh Inda v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company 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 Bhagwati Industries

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Shree Palariya Events and Decorators

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Chai Bazaar

Hdfc Bank versus Harphool Yadav

Govind Hari Dixit versus Bank of India

Sandeep Jhanwar versus Reliagre Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited