Dismissed

Jagmohan Ladhar v. Ms Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company

DRT12 May 2023SA/40/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Securitization Application under Section 17 SARA, 2002 filed by a school owner challenging NPA classification by a Finance Company. The debtor argued the withdrawal reason was missing and second loan lacked documentation. The court dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is dismissed as there is no merit in the contention.

Jagmohan Ladhar versus Ms Cholamandalam Investment and Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

SA/40/2022 JAGMOHAN LADHAR

¶3

¶4

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY

¶5

12.05.2023

¶6

Item No.89

¶7

Present: Sh. Lovish Arora, Counsel for the Applicants.

¶8

Sh. Rohit Sapra, Counsel for the respondent FI.

¶9

Jagmohan Ladhar and others (Applicants) have filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against M/s Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and another (Respondents).

¶10

Admittedly, Applicants are running a school. Applicants had taken a Term loan of Rs.40 lacs from the respondent on 31.03.2017 which was re-payable in monthly installments starting from 05.05.2017. During the Covid period, applicants were given a loan of Rs.7.39 lacs on 12.11.2020, which was re-payable in monthly installments starting from 05.01.2021. Since the account of the applicants was not running properly, vide notice dated 26^th July, 2021, respondent F1 had issued a notice under Section 13(2) demanding a sum of Rs.40,80,818.25p. In the notice it was mentioned that account of the applicant has been declared NPA on 14^th June, 2021. Again on 14.09.2021, respondent issued another notice under Section 13(2) stating that account of the applicants has been declared NPA on 31^st July, 2021 and an amount of Rs.49,55,240.34p was due, which included both the accounts. Earlier, notice under Section 13(2) issued on 26.07.2021 was withdrawn by the respondent.

¶11

Reply to the SA has been filed.

¶12

I have heard Mr. Lovish Arora, counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rohit Sapra, counsel for the respondent.

¶13

Mr. Arora, has argued that in the second notice under Section 13(2) no reason was given for withdrawing earlier notice. Accordingly, the account of the applicant was wrongly declared NPA.

¶14

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶15

Per contra , Mr. Sapra, has submitted that there was a second loan account which was not mentioned in the earlier notice and the date of declaring account NPA was not mentioned in the first notice. This led the bank to issue second notice.

¶16

I have considered the rival contention.

¶17

I am of the considered view that the respondent was not supposed to give a reason for recalling earlier notice and no prejudice has been caused to the applicants by the act of the respondent. Apart from this, Mr. Arora, has further argued that applicants had not applied for the second loan and there is no document placed on the record for granting the second loan. Mr. Sapra, has submitted that the second loan was given as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and this objection has not been taken in the SA. I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present SA and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶18

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶19

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

¶20

Pronounced in open court. PANKAJ 12.05.2023

Jagmohan Ladhar v. Ms Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagmohan Ladhar v. Ms Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company

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

Ms Shree Ganesh Packaging Industries versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Goura Plastics

Punjab National Bank versus G Prasad

Ms Wani Enterprises versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Monika General Store and Others

State Bank of India versus S Mulakalapalli Primary Agricultural Society Ltd.