Dismissed

Nakkala Ilaya Yadav v. Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

DRT13 Nov 2023SA/333/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitisation Application filed under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against a possession notice, the Tribunal dismissed the application because the applicant failed to plead non-compliance of service despite raising subscription and accounting discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application No. 333 of 2022 is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications are disposed of. No order as to costs.

Nakkala Ilaya Yadav versus Iifl Home Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEIYBER, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAIYESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFiCER

¶5

Securitisation Application No. 333 of 2022

¶6

Nakka la Ilaya Yadav s/o sattaia h, Aged: tvtajor Occ: Retd. Service 2. Sulochana Yadav W/o Ilaya Yadav Aged: lvlajor, Occ: Housewife. 3. Na kkala Arun Yadav S/o Ilaya Yadav Aged: Major. Occ: Service. ........Applicants. All R/o of H. No. 6-3-831/C/1, Shanti Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-34. Versus IIFL Home Finance Ltd. Rep. by its Authorised Officer Corporate Office, Plot No. 98 Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV G urgaon, Ha rya na - 1 220 1 5. ........ Respondent. Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Sanghi. Counsel for the Respondent : fi(. P. Ramachandran. eY"*

¶7

sA.No.333/2022

¶8

-:^q8-D-EB:-

¶9

The^present Securitization^{Applicationis filed by the Applicant} uls.L7 of the^{Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial} Assets and Enforcement of^{Security Interest Act, 2002} challenging the^{PossessionNotice 10 11.2022 issuedby} respondent company u/s.13(4)^{of the SARFAESIAct,2002.}

¶10

Though learned counsel for^{therespondententered} appearance, he did not^{pursuefurther in filing counters in iA} and reply statement in SA.^{Accordingly,the Respondentwas} set ex-parte on^23.72.2022.

¶11

Heard the Ld. counsel^{appearing for the Applicantand perused} the material^{papers placed by applicants.}

¶12

The applicants challenged the^{impugned possessionnotice for} the reason of non-compliance of^{the section 13(34) in letter} and spirit to the objections^{raised to the demandnotice dated} 30.04.2022 vide legal^notice dated^{25.06.2022.The grounds} urged inter alia, are that^{the internal rate of interesthas to be} analysed in the light of^{the provisionscontainedin the Usurious} Loans Act, 1918. The respondent bank^{failed to furnisha} comprehensive statement of^{accountu/s 65-B of the Indian} Evldence Act, 1872. It^ls the^{bonafide belief of applicants that} the respondent is^{illegally debiting the interesttax component} to the loan account and^{respondent is evading capitalgains tax.} The statement of account filed^{alongwith reply noticedated} 06.07.2022 has not been^{prepared as per the accounting} methods followed in Indla in the ratio^{laid in A.I.R 2001S,c.} The impugned^possession notice^{is not issued as per the ratio of} law laid down in Mardia Chemicals^{Case AIR 2004 SC 2377.}

¶13

T$.<',.>

¶14

SA.No,333/2022

¶15

With these averments, applicants prayed for setting aside the possession notice dated 70.77.2022.

¶16

As stated supra, the Respondent remained ex-parte. in the objections to the demand notice, applicants requested the respondent company to furnish a comprehensive statement of account of their loan account in the manner contemplated by the Constitutional Bench ludgment reported in Para No.56 A.I.R 2001 S.C. at page No.3095 to analyse the 'internal rate of return' on commercial loans along with information on the interest tax component, capital gains tax compliance etc. In response, respondent vide letter dated 06.07.2022 furnished the statement of account (para 11) while rejecting all other issues on the ground of their untenability under law. Thereafter, applicants filed a c.c. No.576 of 2022 dated 27.07 .2022 before the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad raising same such issues, wherein respondent company filed written statement.

¶17

It is the case of the applicants that the respondent has not furnished a comprehensive statement of loan account prepared in the manner contemplated under Paras 56 and 57 of the Constitutional Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 2001 SC at Page No.3095 to enable them to analyse the'internal rate of return'being^posted in the books of accounts of the respondent company^qua the commercial loan. As far as the securltisation^proceedings are concerned, there ls no prima facie evidence to^prove that the respondent company violated the^provisions of the Securitisation Act or the Rules thereunder in serving the demand notice u/s 13(2) and^possession notice u/s 13(4).

!5'*r,r>

SA.No.333/2022

Although the respondent^{company failed to pursue the case, as} far as the compliance of^{provisionsof the SARFAESIAct and the} Rules in serving the demand^notice dated^{30.04.2022 and the} possession notice dated 10.11.2022 are concerned,^the applicants have not^{pleaded non-complianceof service of the} same. Therefore, I find that the^{applicantsfailed to makeout} any valid^ground to^quash the^{possession notice dated} 10.11.2022 and accordingly the SA^{is liable to be dismissed.}

¶22

In the result, the^present Securitisation Application^is dismissed.

¶23

Consequently, Interlocutory Applications^pending if any,^shall stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶24

Communicate a copy of this order to the^parties concerned.

¶25

(Dictoted to the Steno, signed ond pronounced by me in the open court on this the 73th doy of November, 2023).

¶26

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Nakkala Ilaya Yadav v. Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakkala Ilaya Yadav v. Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

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

Sabihe Ayyub Kapadia and Ors. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Ms Sangini Textile versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus G.K. Fashion Hub

Gireesh Sivasankar versus Sundaram Home Finance Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Shamshiri Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Prevalant Cab