Dismissed

Mugebur Rahman v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT20 Jun 2023SA/5/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging a possession notice, the applicant claimed sole heirship to settle dues. The respondent agreed to verify legal heirs for fresh action or settlement. Finding no merits to adjudge, the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application without costs.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without costs; interim orders vacated; liberty granted to respondent to proceed further if default continues.

Mugebur Rahman versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 05 of 2023 20.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 05 of 2023

¶7

Mugebur Rahmna S/o.Shahul Hameed No.10, Agasthiar II Street Old Street, Naidu Shop Road Radha Nagar, Chrompet Chennai – 600 044 ….Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer

¶10

Edelweiss Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd., Registered Office : Edelweiss House Off CST Road Kalina Mumbai – 400 098 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S.Gunaseelan, S.Chakravarthy, M.Hemalatha & G.Shakthipriya Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S.K.Mariyappan, R.Chandramohan & S.Ram Prasad

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 17.11.2022 issued by respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.42,10,623.82/-

¶15

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶16

It is the case of applicant that he is the sole legal heir of the deceased mortgagor

¶17

and that all other legal heirs of the deceased, passed away. Applicant claims himself to

¶18

¶19

S.A. 05 of 2023 20.06.2023

¶20

be brother of the principal borrower while co-borrower is the mother of applicant. It is submitted that mother passed away and applicant’s brother also passed away. It is further submitted that wife of his brother has married yet another person and moved out of the family. It is applicant alone, who is claiming devolution of title and possession over the property and consequently has challenged the present SARFAESI action of possession notice issued by the respondent financial institution dated 17.11.2022. Ld.Counsel submits that applicant had entered into a negotiated settlement with the respondent financial institution, who is the assignee of the debt and would like to settle the loan dues in terms of the said settlement. Ld.Counsel appearing for applicant has filed a memo to the said effect after serving copies on the other side.

¶21

Whereas, Ld.Counsel for respondent financial institution has conceded to the submissions made on behalf of applicant and submits that respondent financial institution shall take a call with regard to the property and documents, on receipt of payments as promised by applicant. Ld.Counsel further submits taht the property is willed in favour of applicant and his deceased brother under a will dated 08.06.2011, duly registered before SRO, Pallavaram. It is also the case of respondent that applicant’s brother, Mr.Zakir Hussain had executed the settlement deed in applicant’s favour on 19.10.2015 which is also duly registered before SRO, Pallavaram. In the circumstances, respondent financial institution is seeking a legal heir certificate from the applicant herein, so as to ascertain who are the bonafide legal heirs, which would then enable respondent financial institution to initiate fresh SARFAESI action, as the present notice is issued against the dead person and therefore shall not survive legally. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.

¶22

¶23

S.A. 05 of 2023 20.06.2023

¶24

From the foregone submissions of both the parties and the memos filed after serving copies on each other, it is clear that applicant intends to establish his title over the property and then enter into a negotiated settlement with the respondent financial institution by deliberating on the outstanding amounts due and payable. Similarly, respondent financial institution also intends to prosecute its SARFAESI actions afresh, in view of death of the borrower as well as the co-borrower, eventually in a situation where its dues are not recoverable and not settled by the present applicant herein.

¶25

Since parties intend to rescind to a negotiated settlement and even otherwise respondent financial institution intends to initiate action afresh, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed. However, liberty be with respondent financial institution to proceed further in accordance to law if the default of the borrowers, through their legal heirs, continues.

¶27

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

A copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned as per extant guidelines.

¶29

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20^th day of June, 2023)

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mugebur Rahman v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mugebur Rahman v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction 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

Union Bank of India versus Vinoth Kumar

Water Front Pier Hotel Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited

Kbs Manian Bros Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director Mr Devasigamani Vignesh versus Canara Bank

Sri Padma balaji Transport versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus Turntech Technologies

T Pugazhenthy versus Canara Bank