Dismissed

Ms Hr Trading Co. v. Hdfc Bank

DRT5 Dec 2024SA/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants challenged a Section 13(4) notice under the SARFAESI Act, arguing the Bank failed to dispose of their objections to the Section 13(2) notice. The court found the objections were sent to the wrong address and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is dismissed. Pending IAs, if any, are disposed of accordingly.

Ms Hr Trading Co. versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

SA No.13/2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/13/2024

¶4

M/S HR TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS

¶5

Vs.

¶6

AUTHORIZED OFFICER HDFC BANK

¶7

05.12.2024 Item No.14

¶8

Present:

¶9

Sh. B.M. Vinayak, Counsel for the Applicant along with Sh. Hari Krishan Bhatia/Applicant No.3 in person.

¶10

Sh. C.S. Pasricha and Sh. K.D. Sharma, Counsel for Respondent/HDFC bank.

¶11

M/s HR Trading Company 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 (SARFAESI Act), against the Authorized Officer, HDFC Bank (Respondent).

¶12

Admittedly, vide sanction letter dated 02.06.2017, HDFC Bank had sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.75.00 Lacs to Applicant No.1, a proprietorship firm, of Mrs. Ritu Bhatia i.e. Applicant No.2. Mr. Hari Krishan Bhatia, (Applicant No.3) was the guarantor for the loan. Apart from this, the bank had sanctioned another Term Loan of Rs.9.50 Lacs and in the year 2020 bank had sanctioned GECL Limit of Rs.17.93 Lacs. To secure these loans, Applicant No.2 had created security interest in respect of the property bearing No.31, measuring 606.66 square yards, situated at Miran Kot Khurd, Loharka Road Tehsil Amritsar, District Amritsar. Applicants did not make the repayment of the loan, as per the repayment schedule. On 05.06.2022, the bank declared the account NPA. On 20.09.2022, bank issued the notice under Section 13(2) demanding a sum of Rs.1,16,17,021/-. As per the Applicants, they had filed objections to the same on 10.12.2022. However, the Bank has denied that the Applicants submitted the objections. On 17.11.2023, bank issued the notice under Section 13(4). On 14.12.2023, Applicants had submitted the objections to the notice under Section

¶13

¶14

SA No.13/2024

¶15

13(4) and the Bank disposed of the same on 27.12.2023. On 22.12.2023 Applicants filed the present SA. Respondent Bank has filed reply to the same.

¶16

Mr. Vinayak, Counsel for the applicants argues that Applicants had filed objections to the notice under Section 13(2) dated 20.09.2022, on 10.12.2022 which were dispatched by them on 12.12.2022. However, Bank did not dispose of the same. Mr. Vinayak, argues that since, the bank had not disposed of the objections, the bank was not justified in issuing the notice under Section 13(4) and as such the notice under Section 13(4) be set aside and the SARFAESI action be quashed.

¶17

Per Contra, Mr. Pasricha, counsel for the respondent bank has submitted that the Applicants had never replied to the notice under Section 13(2). The alleged objections were sent by them to some other address which was not of the authorized officer. Further, the objections were also filed late. The authorized officer never received objections. However, he has submitted that the Applicants had filed objections to the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Though the authorized officer was not supposed to respond to the objections to the notice under Section 13(4), yet, the authorized officer duly considered the same and also responded to the same. Mr. Pasricha, has argued that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶18

5. I have considered the rival contentions.

¶19

The only ground which has been setup by the Applicants is that the Bank had not disposed of the objections which were submitted by the Applicants to the notice under Section 13(2). However, a perusal of the notice under Section 13(2) shows that authorized officer had given his address on which the Applicants should send the objections. Admittedly, Applicants did not send the objections at the address of the authorized officer and sent it at some other address. Respondent has denied that these objections were ever received by the authorized officer.

¶20

¶21

SA No.13/2024

¶22

I am of the considered view that there is no force in the contention of Applicants that they had submitted the objections to the authorized officer which he failed to consider. Applicants have placed on record postal receipts i.e. (Annexure A-13), on which the address of the authorized officer is not there as mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶23

In view of this, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present SA and the same is hereby dismissed. All the pending IAs, if any are also stand disposed off accordingly.

¶24

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per

¶25

rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶26

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

¶27

Pronounced in open court Dated: 05.12.2024 PANKAJ

¶28

Ms Hr Trading Co. v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Hr Trading Co. v. Hdfc Bank

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

P K Krishnan versus The Payangadi Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

M S Gayatri Cement Zali and Pipe Udyog versus Indian Bank

Ali Cloth House versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Premwati Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Fatima Tabussam

Hdfc Bank versus Ashutosh Asthana