DRT-I, Chandigarh dismissed a Section 17 Application filed by a house seller seeking restraint of a bank's possession under SARFAESI. The Court held that since the bank made payments on behalf of the borrower, the applicant has no merit in the application.
Securitization Application under Section 17 dismissed; file consigned to record room.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/57/2023 KIRANDEEP KAUR Vs IDFC FIRST BANK LTD
12.07.2023 Item No.45 Present: Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Counsel for the Applicant. Sh.Aditya Grover, Counsel for respondent bank.
Kirandeep Kaur (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against IDFC First Bank and others (Respondents).
Admittedly, Capital First Bank (now IDFC First Bank) had advanced some credit facilities to Narinder Kumar Grover/respondent No.4, for purchasing a house from the applicant. Since, respondent No.4 did not make the repayment of the loan, bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings and issued notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Respondent bank also approached the District Magistrate for the order under Section 14 of the Securitization Act.
The case of the applicant is that she has sold a house to respondent No.4/Narinder Kumar Grover. Further, respondent No.4 had issued two cheques for sale consideration wgucg were dishonored at the time of presentation. The case of the applicant is that she is neither the borrower nor the guarantor and she is in possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, bank be restrained from taking the possession.
Reply to the SA has been filed.
I have heard Mr.Sukhandeep Singh, counsel for the applicant and Mr.Aditya Grover, Counsel for respondent bank.
I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present SA. Even if all the facts mentioned in the SA are admitted, the fact remains that the applicant admits that she has sold the house to respondent No.4, who had taken the loan. In case the cheques issued by respondent No.4 have been dishonored, the fact remains that he is owner of the property and was competent to mortgage the same in favour of the bank.
Be that as it may, from the reply it is evident that the bank had made the payment of Rs.17 lacs and odd sum to the applicant on behalf of Narinder Kumar Grover, who had purchased the property, at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present SA and the same is hereby dismissed . File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court.
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
MANOJ
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, being a seller and not the borrower or guarantor, can claim possession of the secured asset.
Whether the bank's proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitization Act are maintainable against the applicant.
Whether the sale consideration paid by the bank disqualifies the applicant from restraining the bank's actions.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Kirandeep Kaur
IDFC First Bank Ltd
A. S Narang
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
