Applicants challenged possession notice under SARFAESI Act. Tribunal rejected plea for mandatory arbitration and dismissed application, finding enforcement actions lawful and deposits insufficient.
Recovery of remaining amount as per agreed terms allowed; application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
SA No. 255/2023
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA
SA No.- 255/2023
(1) Suneel Kumar Meena S/o Kesar Lal Meena Resident of Village Peepla via Chittora Manjhi, Renwal, Phagi Jaipur Rajasthan. District
(2) Smt. Maina Devi D/o Madan Mohan Meena W/o Mr. Kesar Lal Meena, R/o. Balaji ki Dhani, Pipla, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
(3) Pawan Kumar Meena S/o Mr. Kesar Lal Meena, R/o. Balaji ki Dhani, Pipla, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
... Applicants
VERSUS
Jumbo Finvest (India) limited, Regd. Office, kanchan Apartment Opposite L.B.S. College, Tilak Nagar Jaipur (Raj.) Through Authorized Officer
…Respondent
Present:
Sh. Dhrampal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant
Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
(Final Order)
(18.10.2023)
CM
2
CM
3
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the applicant took objection that the SA applicant is an illiterate person who can read and understands only hindi language. It was also argued that as per clause 24 of Loan Agreement, the Respondent FI was required to go for arbitration first and so they were not empowered to take steps under the Provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002.
Heard arguments and perused the record.
Above said two grounds are not part of pleadings but as the agreement was explained to SA applicant in hindi
CM
4
language, default was committed, account was declared as NPA on 01.07.2019, as per statement of account, no amount was deposited after 18.09.2019 and when Respondent FI issued Demand Notice, it was served upon the SA applicant, so now the plea of hindi language in notices etc is not liable to be entertained because in any condition SA applicant was required to pay EMI regularly.
With regard to go for arbitration, I am of the view that the Respondent FI is at liberty to go as per the Provisions of SARFAESI Act of 2002 and it was not binding on them so both the objections stands rejected.
So, amount deposited on 30.01.2023, 28.02.2023 and on 04.05.2023, statement of account so filed along with the reply goes to show that said amount is dully reflected as adjusted and so Respondent FI is entitled for recovery of remaining amount as per agreed terms and conditions because, it is also a fact that since 01.10.2019 to 29.01.2023, no amount was deposited by SA applicant.
Therefore, in my considered opinion, there is nothing illegal in the actions initiated by Respondent FI and so SA stands disposed of as dismissed.
Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur
CM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Specified Bank Sangoha under SARFAESI Act is bound to arbitrate before enforcing security interest.
Whether the applicants' claims regarding language of notices and procedural objections are valid.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suneel Kumar Meena
Maina Devi
Pawan Kumar Meena
Jumbo Finvest (India) limited
Vivek Saxena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
