Applications challenging the recovery of dues and possession notice issued by LIC Housing Finance Limited dismissed for lack of merit and non-compliance with interim conditions.
SA dismissed without costs; previous interim order vacated; all other IAs closed.
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
S.A. 477 of 2022 11.07.2023
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2023
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 477 of 2022
1. M/s Ariff & Co
No.25, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore Chennai – 600 004
2. Mr.Aboobucker Ariff
No.25, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore Chennai – 600 004
3. Mrs.Hameeda Banu
No.25, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore Chennai – 600 004 … Applicants Vs.
The Authorised officer LIC Housing Finance Limited Harrington Chambers, Block No.A & C No.30/1A, Abdul Razack 1st street Saidapet Chennai – 600 015 … Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicants : M/s. V.Arunagiri, K.Ashok Kumar & A.Bharathy Krishnan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Ramalingam & Associates
2
S.A. 477 of 2022 11.07.2023
ORDER
3
S.A. 477 of 2022 11.07.2023
financial institution for restructuring the loan and granting of moratorium. Considering the covid impact, restructuring was permitted twice and moratoriums were also sanctioned twice. However applicants had only been seeking extension of time but are not causing any repayment, owing to which their account swelled with the interest liability and also in the discharge of principle amount due. Ld.Counsel submits that despite restructuring the loan twice and also extending moratoriums twice, applicants could not repay the loan owing to which the demand notice under Sec.13(2) was issued. Applicants had raised their objections to the demand notice by their letter dated 25.08.2022 which was since replied by the respondent financial institution on 05.09.2022 detailing the default committed by the borrowers. Despite receipt of reply from the respondent financial institution, as applicants did not choose to cause any payment or regularise their loan account, respondent financial institution, have been left with no alternative but to issue the impugned possession notice dated 01.11.2022 which is duly served on the borrowers, affixed on the conspicuous place of the mortgaged property and also paper publication made within the time prescribed under the act. Ld.Counsel submits that respondent financial institution had followed the procedure as warranted under law and submits that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent financial institution while issuing the impugned possession notice.
4
S.A. 477 of 2022 11.07.2023
parties and thus have contributed for such high demands, when the outstanding due is much less than that. Except for a bald allegation that the respondent financial institution has been charging overdue interest at non-contractual rates, no other evidence is placed before this Tribunal nor admitted to be established by any document in support of their contentions.
5
S.A. 477 of 2022 11.07.2023
interim condition imposed by this Tribunal and so there is no stay or any interim order that has come into force by virtue of the orders of this Tribunal. As respondent financial institution has established their procedure through their counter and typed set of documents which are found to be in accordance to law, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.
(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 11th day of July, 2023)
Sd/-
(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the possession notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was legally valid without tenable infirmities in procedure.
Whether the applicants established bona fides or compliance with interim deposit conditions to grant relief.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Ariff & Co
Mr. Aboobucker Ariff
Mrs. Hameeda Banu
The Authorised officer LIC Housing Finance Limited
Ganapathi K.R.K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
