Disposed

Vijendra Rai And Anr. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

DRT15 Apr 2024SA/199/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interlocutory application challenging a securitisation application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal disposed of the plea questioning its jurisdiction post-settlement. The parties had amicably settled the debt, with the creditor issuing a no dues certificate and returning title deeds, rendering further proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory application disposed of with no order as to costs.

Vijendra Rai And Anr. versus Edelweiss Asset… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.17

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.323 of 2024

¶5

¶6

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.199 of 2023

¶7

Vijendra Rai and Anr.

¶8

… Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. … Defendant Ltd.

¶11

Mr Vijendra Rai – applicant in person.

¶12

Mrs Uma S. Fadia – Advocate for defendant.

¶13

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 15^th April 2024.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

On 7^th October 2022, the applicant presented the Securitisation Application seeking the following orders and reliefs:

¶16

“(a) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the possession notice dated 22.09.2022 issued by the Advocate Commissioner in Case No.293/SA/2019 in respect of the property being Flat No.801, 8^th Floor, Building No.2, Bianca Building, Gundavali Azad Road, Behind Vishal Hall and BMC Office, Andheri (East) Road, Mumbai – 400 069 and may be pleased to differ the possession scheduled on 12.10.2022 at 11 am in respect of the subject property and also to declare the entire action/measures initiated U/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act as illegal, null and void-ab-initio;

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

(b) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the entire illegal measures initiated by the Respondent U/s 14 of the Securitisation Application including excparte order dated 08/07/2022 passed by the Ld. CMM, Esplanade, Mumbai in Case No.293/SA/2019 and be pleased to declare the entire action initiated by erstwhile DHFL and the Respondent U/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act as unconstitutional, illegal and null and void;

¶19

(c) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the entire illegal measures initiated by the erstwhile DHFL and the Respondent U/s 14 of the Securitisation Act including ex-parte order dated 08/07/2022 passed by the Ld. CMM, Esplanade, Mumbai in Case No.293/SA/2019;

¶20

(d) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set the notice issued U/s 13(2) dated 29/03/2018 under the Securitisation Act and further be pleased to declare the illegal classification of account as NPA as bad in law;

¶21

(e) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to restrain the Respondent, its officers, agents, representatives and any persons acting through them from in manner proceedings further in respect of the property being Flat No.801, 8^th Floor, Building No.2, Bianca Building, Gundavali Azad road, Behind Vishal Hall & BMC Office, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 069 and from taking the forcible physical possession of the said property in pursuance of the ex-parte order dated 08/07/2022 passed by the Ld. CMM, Esplanade, Mumbai and Notice dated 22.09.2022 issued by the Advocate Commissioner in pursuance thereof and be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the said notice dated 22.09.2022; (f) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to restrain the Respondent bank from in any manner alienating, encumbering, transferring and/or disposing and/or from taking actual physical possession of the property being Flat No.801, 8^th Floor, Building No.2, Bianca Building, Gundavali Azad Road, Behind Vishal Hall & BMC Office, Andheri (East), Mumbai

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

400 069 and/or from initiating any further measures U/s 13(4) of the

¶24

SARFAESI Act;

¶25

(g) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to look into the validity of the alleged mortgage and whether any security interest is created in respect of the said property and further direct the Respondent to produce entire documentary evidence before this Hon’ble Tribunal to substantiate their mortgage;

¶26

(h) That this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the Respondent, its officers, agents, representatives and any person acting through them from in any manner proceeding further in respect of the property being Flat No.801, 8^th Floor, Building No.2, Bianca Building, Gundavali Azad Road, Behind Vishal Hall & BMC Office, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069 and from taking any further measures U/s 13(4) or 14 of the Securitisation Act and further restrain from dispossessing the Applicants from the said property and/or alienating or encumbering the said property and from executing and implementing the order dated 08/07/2022 passed by the CMM Esplanade, Mumbai and notice dated 22.09.2022 issued in pursuance thereof and from taking the actual physical possession of the said property;

¶27

(i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present S.A., that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the Respondent, its officers, agents, representatives and any person acting through them from in any manner proceeding further in respect of the property being Flat No.801, 8^th Floor, Building No.2, Bianca Building, Gundavali Azad Road, Behind Vishal Hall & BMC Office, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069 and from taking any further measures U/s 13(4) or 14 of the Securitisation Act and further restrain from dispossessing the Applicants from the said property and/or alienating or encumbering the said property and from executing and implementing the order dated 08/07/2022 passed by the CMM Esplanade, Mumbai and notice dated 22.09.2022 issued in pursuance thereof and from taking the

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

actual physical possession of the said property;

¶30

(j) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶31

(k) For costs of the present Securitisation Application.

¶32

During the pendency of the Securitisation Application, the applicants pressed for the urgent orders and reliefs in I.A. No.1633 of 2024. On 25^th January 2024, the Tribunal heard the parties and reserved it for orders. On 7^th February 2024, the Tribunal passed order in I.A. No.1633 of 2023 rejecting it. Mr Rai submits that on 21^st July 2023, I.A. No.1633 of 2023 was presented for the reliefs claimed therein.

¶33

Mrs Fadia, representing the secured creditor, drew the Tribunal attention to the order-sheet dated 7^th February 2024 to show that the parties amicably settled the matter. The secured creditor issued no dues certificate on 29^th January 2024 upon receiving the final installment of Rs.33.20 lakhs and handed over the original title deeds to the applicants. Per contra Mr Rai, representing the applicants, submits that he acknowledged and received no dues certificate and the original title deeds under protest. Mrs Fadia submits that since the parties amicably settled the matter it was the applicants’ obligation to withdraw the Securitisation Application. Having failed to do so, the applicants compelled it to move the present Interlocutory Application. Mrs Fadia submits that the secured creditor withdrew the action and measures under the SARFAESI Act and therefore, the Securitisation Application in its present form is not maintainable.

¶34

As aforesaid, Mr Rai makes the grievance that he received under protest the no dues certificate and the original title deeds from the secured creditor. However, Mr Rai could not persuade the Tribunal about how this Tribunal can retain jurisdiction under Section 17(1) once the action and measures under the SARFAESI Act stood

¶35

Page 4 of 6

¶36

terminated. The scope of inquiry under Section 17(1) is limited and cannot be enlarged beyond measures. Therefore, the Tribunal pass the following order.

¶37

Interlocutory Application no.323 of 2024 stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Deepak M. Thakkar) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶40

Nidhi

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶43

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

ORDER SHEET

15.04.2024

Sr. No.17

		SA No.199 of 2023
classifi -cation	No. of Exh.	Vijendra Rai and Anr. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.
		Mr Vijendra Rai – applicant in person. Mrs Uma S. Fadia – Advocate for defendant.
		1. Order in I.A. No.323 of 2024 passed separately. 2. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.323 of 2024,
		S.A. No.199 of 2023 stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
		3. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
Nidhi		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶48

Page 6 of 6

Vijendra Rai And Anr. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Rai And Anr. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company 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

Union Bank of India versus Dcon India Construction

Electra Global Resources Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Mv Super Alloys Pvt. Ltd. versus Karur Vysya Bank

Maharashtra State Financial Corporation versus International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Maanas Fashion

Sunil Kishan Jadhav versus the City Co-Operative Bank Ltd.