Dismissed

Govind Sharan Sharma v. Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

DRT20 Apr 2023SA/820/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses the applicant's Securitization Application. The court held that no objection was raised to the demand notice, the objection to respondent authority was unnecessary, and actions taken by the Financial Institution were not illegal. The matter was disposed of with parties at liberty to decide settlement amicably.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed, and parties were at liberty to decide the settlement amicably.

Govind Sharan Sharma versus Shubham Housing Development… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No.- 820/2022

¶5

Govind Sharan Sharma S/o Sh. Trilak Chand Sharma, R/o Plot no. 522, Govind Rao Ji Kas Rasta, 1^st Crossing, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Also At:- Plot no. A-36, Sheme Keshav Nagar 2^nd Block A, Vidhya Peeth Road Jai Singhpura Khore, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶6

Smt. Kalpna Sharma w/o Sh. Govind sharan Sharma, R/o Plot no. 522, Govind Rao Ji Kas Rasta, 1^st Crossing, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Also At:- Plot no. A-36, Sheme Keshav Nagar 2^nd Block A, Vidhya Peeth Road Jai Singhpura Khore, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶7

.........Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Ltd. 104-105,

¶10

Amprapali Plaza, Vaisali Nagar, Jaipur through its authorized officer.

¶11

........Respondent FI

¶12

Present:-

¶13

Shri Kailash Tailor, Counsel for the applicant

¶14

Shri Pramod Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶15

(Final Order) (20.04.2023)

¶16

This Securitization application was filed on 28.12.2022.

¶17

¶18

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶19

¶20

Vide order dated 30.12.2022, the applicant was directed to appear on the next date of heiarng along with DD of Rs. 50,000/- & respondent FI was directedto not to confirm the sale.

¶21

Reply to the SA was filed on 27.03.2023.

¶22

No rejoinder to reply was filed.

¶23

Availing crtedit facility is admitted and mortgage of subject property, is also admitted.

¶24

Account was declared as NPA on 04.04.2021.

¶25

Demand notice is challenged on the ground that boundries and measurment of subejct mortgaged property, is not mentioned.

¶26

Sale notice was issued on 24.11.2022 and sale was proposed on 29.12.2022 (Annexure A/4) sale notice.

¶27

Competency and authority of respondent Fi, isalso challenged in the light of notification dated 24.02.2020 and 12.02.2021 (Anne xure A/5).

¶28

10.Based on abovesaid objections, Ld. cousnel for the SA applicant argued that actions taken by the respondent FI are requinred to be quashed and set aside.

¶29

11.Reply to the SA was filed and from the Annexure R/1, it is clear that possession notice dated 18.08.2021 was affixed also at the subject mortgaged property and so there is nothing illegal in the proceedings with regard to taking possession of subject property.

¶30

12.It is also clear that no objection to demand notice was filed by SA applciant, as no such proof is filed on record.

¶31

13.With regard to objection of authority of respondent FI, as claimed by SA applicant this objection is not required to be considered in the light of notification filed at Annexure R/2 and so this objection stands dismissed.

¶32

14.Valuation report is also filed and as the auction resulted into failur so, issue of valuation of reserve price also needs no consideration.

¶33

15.So, there is nothing illegal in actions taken by the respondent FI and as per relief clause 6.6 the applciant is at liberty to approach to

¶34

¶35

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶36

¶37

respondent FI for settlment and both the parties are at liberty, to decide

¶38

the settlment amicablly.

¶39

16.Based on these facts this SA stands disposed of as dismissed.

¶40

Copy of the order be given free to the concerned parties.

¶41

File be placed before the Registrar for compliance after compliance file be consigned to record, as per rules.

¶42

(VIVEK SAXENA) Presiding Officer

¶43

DRT, Jaipur

¶44

Govind Sharan Sharma v. Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Sharan Sharma v. Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S Durga Industries

Canara Bank versus Tarun Sharma

State Bank of India versus Mr Ganesh Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Ramji Lal Gurjar

Hdfc Bank versus A.K Shikshan Shodh Evam Vikas Sansthan

Axis Bank versus M/S Uttam Foods