Dismissed

Ashoutosh Prabhakar v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

DRT14 Jul 2023SA/66/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appeals Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act seeking to set aside a demand notice and possession notice issued by LIC Housing Finance Ltd. The court held that grievances regarding incorrect loan calculations must have been raised during the opportunity to represent against the earlier notices. As no representation was made and no proof of payments was annexed,

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 17 and all pending ad hoc applications were dismissed with costs.

Ashoutosh Prabhakar versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA66of 2023 [JJ

DRT,PATNA

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶6

Presiding Officer: Shri KaushalendraYadav

¶7

SA- 66 of 2023

¶8

Ashutosh Prabhakar, 5/0 B.B. Sahay, Residing at Flat No. MIG - 123, Kankarbagh,Sampatchak,Patna, Bihar- 800026, Adhar - 901292451040.

¶9

Mrs. Shikha Srivastava, W/o Ashutosh Prabhakar, S/o B.B.Sahay, Residingat Flat No. MIG - 123, Kankarbagh,Sampatchak, Patna, Bihar - 800026, Adhar - 673216558074.

¶10

. Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

Authorised Officer, L1CHousing Finance Ltd. (L1CHFL),4thFloot, BSFCBuilding, FrazerRoad,Patna Bihar- 800001.

¶13

--respondent

¶14

Present:

¶15

For the Applicant : Sh.Manoj Kr. Chaudhary,Advocate For the respondents Bank : None

¶16

Dated: 14.07.2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Present application u/s 17 of SARFAESIAct has been filed with a prayer to set aside the entire action alongwith PossessionNotice.

¶19

During pendency of S.application IA 122/2023 has been filed by the applicants for condonation of delay of 10 days.

¶20

Further, IA 377/2023 has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to restrain the respondent from taking physical possessionof the property.

¶21

The brief facts of the case is that the applicant availed financial assistanceto the tune of Rs.25 lacs from the respondent financial institution. On default in repayment of the dues of the bank, the account of the applicant was declared as NPAon 15.10.2021. Subsequently, the bank initiated SARFAESIAction against the borrower and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 19.07.2022 calling upon the applicant to make the payment of Rs.26,86,458.00. Further possession notice dated 06.12.2022 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESIAct was issued. Aggrieved from the possessionnotice, this SAhasbeen filed by the applicant.

1..

DRT,PATNA

SA 66 of 2023 [J]

¶26

It is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicants that delay occurred on account of time taken in transit to reach the local advocate practicing in DRTPatna from the advocate primarily appointed by the applicant. There was no deliberate or intentional delay in filing of application.

¶27

As alleged by the applicant that without prior intimation of the applicants, the account was declared as NPA. Moreover, the classification of the account as NPA is against the settled norms of RBI on classification of accounts as NPA. The demand notice dated 19.07.2022 issued u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESIAct but calculations mentioned in the demand notice do not tally with the payments made by the applicants to the respondent. Further, respondent financial institution issued possession notice dated 06.12.2022 u/s by issuing possession notice u/s 13(4) of the act but again the incorrect amount has been mentioned in the possessionnotice asthe payments made after September, 2022 are not accounted for. The interest being charged on the payments is exorbitant and arbitrary. The value of the secured assetsmortgaged with the respondent is much more than the outstanding loan.

¶28

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent stated that the account was declared as NPA as per guidelines issued by RBI. Subsequently, respondent initiated SARFAESIAction against the borrower and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 19.07.2022 calling upon the applicant to make the payment of Rs.26,86,458.00and the demand notice was personally received by the applicant as evident from the annexure annexed with the S. application at page 37-39. Further possession notice dated 06.12.2022 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESIAct was issued and served to the applicants. The possession notice was published in Hindustan Times and Hindustan on 11.12.2022. The possession notice was also affixed on the secured assets.

¶29

I have heard Ld.Counselfor the applicant and gone through the record.

¶30

It has been alleged that without prior intimation to the applicants, the account was declared as NPA. The amount mentioned in demand notice dated 19.07.2022 as well as in the PossessionNotice dated 06.12.2022 is incorrect as the payments made by the applicants in between are not accounted for.

¶31

On perusal of records it appears that the demand notice dated 19.07.2022 was personally received by the applicants. No representation was made against

¶32

¶33

DRT,PATNA

¶34

SA 66 of 2023 [J]

¶35

demand notice regarding wrong calculation as alleged in the S. application. Further, no proof of payments has been annexed with the S. applicants regarding wrong calculation. The service of PossessionNotice issued in furtherance of demand notice has not been denied by the applicant nor its publication or affixation has been denied by the applicants.

¶36

In view of the above discussion,it appearsthat the main grievance of the applicant relates to the calculation of balanceloan amount. This was raised at the time when the opportunity was available to represent against the demand notice. In absence of that it cannot be raised at this stage. No other infirmity of the contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Ruleshas been alleged. Accordingly the application deservesto be dismissedwith costs.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESIAct (S.A.66/2023) is dismissed with costs. All pending lAsfiled, if any in the matter shall stand disposed of.

¶39

A copy of this Judgment be sent to the parties as well as be also uploaded on the e-DRTportal.

¶40

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶41

Presiding Officer

¶42

Debts RecoveryTribunal, Patna

¶43

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 14TH Day ~ of July, 2022.

~ v:.. \ V\ ?\ 'V7

[KaushalendraYadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts RecoveryTribunal, Patna

¶48

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATNA

¶49

Sf. No.	Date of Order or Proceedings	Order with the signature of th	e Court	Office action taken with date
		SA66 of 2023
	14.07.2023	Judgment/Order written on pronounced in the open Court and file.	separate sheets, kept on the case PreSid~fficer

Ashoutosh Prabhakar v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashoutosh Prabhakar v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

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

Shafi Adattil versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Idbi Bank versus M/s Maa Vindhyavashini Industries and others

Uco Bank versus M/s V1 Veriety Mall and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S R R Enterprises and Others

Idbi Bank versus Mohan Kumar Rai and Ors.

Canara Bank versus M/s Aa Cash N Carry and Others