Dismissed

Mandeep Singh Kals v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

DRT3 Aug 2023SA/2/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application for sale of a secured debt. On learning that the property had been auctioned and a sale certificate issued, the applicant refused to implead the auction purchaser, who the Tribunal deemed a necessary party, leading to summary dismissal for non-joinder.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed summarily for non-joinder of necessary party (auction purchaser).

Mandeep Singh Kals versus Iifl Home Finance Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH, PRESIDED OVER BY M.M. DHONCHAK

¶2

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.02/2022

¶3

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 03.01.2022

¶4

DATE OF DECISION: 03^rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

Sh. Mandeep Singh Kals, Unit Nos.13, 14 and 15, 1^st Floor, Global Foyer, Sector-43, Gurugram, Haryana-122001

¶6

….. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

IIFL Home Finance Limited, Plot No.98, 6^th Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Near Maruti Gate No.3, Gurugram, Haryana

¶9

…..Respondent

¶10

Argued by: Sh. Vineet Chadha Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶11

Sh. Mukul Bhimani Advocate for the respondent FI (through VC)

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This Securitisation Application has been filed under Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity).

¶14

In brief, it is the case of the applicant that in the Year 2013, the applicant approached the official of the respondent to sanction loan for a sum of Rs. 3,82,00,000/-; that the loan of Rs. 3,42,00,000/- was sanctioned on 31.03.2015; that subsequently, the loan was restructured for a sum of Rs. 3,96,53,946/-; that the applicant has been paying the EMIs since 2013 and paid those up to April, 2020; that the applicant could not make payments on time; that till date, the applicant has paid Rs. 3,10,00,000/- from starting of the Year 2013 till April, 2020; that on 15.12.2020, the applicant had raised objections with regard to amount of balance principal, amounts levied under the charges and offered to pay the due amount by selling the property with the help of the respondent, if so needed; that request dated 19.02.2021 was made to sell the secured

¶15

SA/02/2022 MANDEEP SINGH KALS VS IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED

¶16

¶17

property and to settle the foreclosure amount with respect to the loan amicably; that thereafter, two reminders were sent; that a reply was received in the affirmative but nothing further happened; that thereafter, several requests were made but to no avail; that thereafter, the account was declared as NPA without application of mind; that demand notice dated 26.10.2021 under Section 13(2) of the Act, was served upon the applicant, which was replied to but it was not appreciated; that on 29.12.2021, the respondent came to the property and tried to trespass by putting their locks illegally; that possession notice was bad in law; that publication was not made in two leading newspapers; that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent through WhatsApp without signature; that it was not signed by any Officer; that principles of natural justice were violated; that possession notice was not accompanied by statement of account; that there was no bifurcation as to any of the charges qua interest or other charges or penalty either in the demand notice or in the possession notice and the valuation report of the Year 2020 was more than what was claimed by the respondent.

¶18

Reply to the SA was filed wherein inter alia it was contended that the applicant failed to highlight any legal infirmity on the part of the respondent in order to make reasonable ground of the application and thus, the present application was liable to be dismissed on this score alone; that the applicant had intentionally concealed the facts; that on the request of the applicant, the loan was restructured; that a fresh loan was executed on 31.03.2015 for a sum of Rs. 3,96,53,946/- for a period of 120 months at an interest rate of 13 per cent per annum but the applicant committed regular defaults in making repayment; that the account was classified as NPA on 14.10.2021; that thereafter, notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act were issued but despite that the applicant did not clear the outstanding loan amount; that after filing the SA, the applicant had also approached the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide Civil Writ Petition No. 1130 of 2022 on 06.01.2022 seeking the same relief; that the said CWP was pending adjudication for 18.07.2022 and thus, two parallel proceedings seeking same relief, could not sustain simultaneously; that the respondent had followed due procedure while initiating the securitisation proceedings and all the requests details with regard to the outstanding amount under

¶19

SA/02/2022 MANDEEP SINGH KALS VS IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED

¶20

¶21

different heads were clearly mentioned in the demand notice. Rest of the averments made in the SA were also denied in reply to the SA.

¶22

Replication/rejoinder was not filed despite direction of this Tribunal.

¶23

I have heard both the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

¶24

In view of the applicant remaining remiss in filing replication/rejoinder despite the direction of this Tribunal, in the light of law laid down in the cases of ‘Manjit Kaur V. Jaskaran Singh’ C.R. No. 8027 of 2014, decided on 20.01.2015, ‘ Charanjit Kaur v. Darshan Singh’ C.R. No. 1205 of 2005, decided on 28.01.2005, ‘Salig Ram and another v. Shiv Shankar and others’ AIR 1971 Punjab and Haryana, 437 D.B. and ‘Jag Dutt v. Smt. Savitri Devi’, AIR 1977 (Punjab) 68 D.B., there has to be assumption against the applicant but that is not being elaborated here further in view of the fact that on behalf of the respondent at the outset of the arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Tribunal that the property in question was sold out in the securitisation proceedings and sale certificate had already been issued in favour of the auction purchaser. On learning about this development, learned counsel for the applicant did not express his intention of impleading the auction purchaser and when specifically asked by this Tribunal, he replied that he was not interested in impleading the auction purchaser. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, after issuance of sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser, the third-party interests have been created in the property in question and the auction purchaser is a necessary party. When auction purchaser is a necessary party and the applicant being the master of his SA, has expressed his intention not to implead the auction purchaser, the SA deserves to be dismissed summarily on account of non-joinder of necessary party. It is ordered accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

¶25

Announced in the open Tribunal

¶26

(M.M. Dhonchak) Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh

Mandeep Singh Kals v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandeep Singh Kals v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Messers Samsung Electronics

Meghalaya Rural Bank versus Shri Christerfils Shira Cajee

State Bank of India versus M/S Nara Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Dacsh Trading Company

Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. versus Gaya Regional Development Authority

Sunil Kumar versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)