Dismissed

Harbhajan Kour v. State Bank of India

DRT22 Nov 2023SA/352/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitization Application under the SARFAESI Act, the applicant, a senior citizen and legal heir of the sole borrower, challenged the bank's initiation of recovery action. The court dismissed the application, holding that RBI guidelines on repayment do not apply as the applicant was not the borrower.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed, and all pending inter-apte materials disposed of accordingly.

Harbhajan Kour versus State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

SA No.352/2023

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No.352/2023 Harbhajan Kour Vs. SBI

¶4

22.11.2023 Item No.97

¶5

Present: Sh.NK Verma, Counsel for the Applicant. Sh.Saurav Goyal, Counsel for respondent bank.

¶6

Harbhajan Kour (Applicant) has filed the present Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against Authorized Officer, State Bank of India (Respondent), challenging the SARFAESI action initiated by the Bank.

¶7

The case of the applicant is, that she alongwith her husband had taken some loan from the bank. To secure the loan, they had created reverse mortgage in favour of the bank. It is stated that applicant is a senior citizen and her husband has died. The loan was taken in the year 2014 and the husband of the applicant died in the year 2017. Thereafter, bank issued demand notices. Though, some payment was made, yet the whole payment was not made to the bank. It is stated that a sum of Rs.26 lacs and odd sum is due in this case. Counsel for the applicant states that the bank intends to take the possession today itself, without following the RBI guidelines. He further states that applicant is a 67 years old lady and suffering from hip fracture and bank be restrained from taking the possession.

¶8

On the other hand, Mr.Saurav Goyal, counsel for the respondent bank states that earlier applicant had filed one SA before this Tribunal, which is fixed up for 15.12.2023 and in that SA no relief has been granted by this Tribunal and without disclosing the factum of the earlier SA, applicant has filed the present SA. He further submitted that applicant had executed an affidavit on dated 03.08.2023 stating that her husband had taken the loan from the bank during his lifetime. Affidavit further states that she will pay the remaining outstanding amount to the bank within a period of two months from 03.08.2023 and in case she fails to make

¶9

the payment within the stipulated period, bank may take legal action against her.

¶10

¶11

SA No.352/2023

¶12

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶13

Mr.Verma, counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant was the co-borrower and he has drawn my attention to the notice issued to Harbhajan Kour, which stated her to be a borrower. However, this fact has been denied by the counsel for the bank, who argues that applicant has been stated to be a borrower as legal heir of Pritpal Singh, in this notice. Mr.Goyal has also produced on the record a copy of the Will executed by her husband, namely Pritpal Singh, in her favour.

¶14

Mr.Verma further argued that as per RBI guidelines, no repayment is required to be made as long as borrower is alive; married couples will be eligible as joint borrowers for financial assistance; the loan shall become due and payable only when the last surviving borrower dies. He further argued that in this case bank has issued notice to Harbhajan Kour referring her as borrower.

¶15

On the other hand, Mr.Goyal, counsel for the respondent bank states that in this case only Pritpal Singh was the borrower. He argued that though a couple is eligible for financial assistance, yet, in the present case only Pritpal Singh had taken the loan.

¶16

I have heard counsel for the parties.

¶17

I am of the considered view that the RBI guidelines are not applicable to the present case as the applicant was not the borrower and she is only a legal heir of the borrower. There is no merit in the present SA and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶18

All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶19

Pronounced in open court.

¶20

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶21

MANOJ/22.11.2023

¶22

Harbhajan Kour v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbhajan Kour v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Ranjan Jyoti Goswami

Uco Bank versus MD Abdul Razzak

Kusum Chandrakant Raut versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Om Transport

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Paras Poly N Print & Ors.

Canara Bank versus Anita Gupta and Ors.