Allowed

G Sudhakaran v. Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

DRT2 Jan 2024SA/264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the SARFAESI application filed by borrowers against IIFL Home Finance Limited. Due to the respondent institution's persistent non-appearance despite multiple notices acknowledged by the institution, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Possession Notice, restored possession to the mortgagor, and prohibited debiting notice expenses.

What did the court decide?

Possession Notice dated 06.04.2023 set aside; possession restored to mortgagor; respondent directed not to debit notice expenses.

G Sudhakaran versus Iifl Home Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No.264 of 2023

02.01.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 02^nd day of January, 2024

¶6

Present: ShriGanapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.264 of 2023

¶9

Mr. G. Sudhakaran S/o Mr. Ganesan Old No.4, New No.2, Main Ulaganathapuram

¶10

Ennore, Chennai – 600 057

¶11

Mrs. S. Kavitha

¶12

W/o Mr. Sudhakaran

¶13

Old No.4, New No.2, Main Ulaganathapuram Ennore, Chennai – 600 057

¶14

Mrs. G. Pushpalata D/o Mr. Ganesan Old No.4, New No.2, Main Ulaganathapuram Ennore, Chennai – 600 057 ….Applicants

¶15

-Vs-

¶16

The Authorised Officer IIFL Home Finance Limited Plot No.98, Udyog Vihar, Phase – IV Gurgaon – 122 016 Haryana Also at Reg. Office at IIFL House Sun Infotech Park, Road No.16 V Plot No.B-23, MIDC, Thane Industrial Area Wagle Estate, Thane – 400 604 .…Respondent

¶17

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶18

Counsel for Applicants : M/s Sri Balaji Law Associates Respondent institution remained absent

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 06.04.2023 issued

¶21

by respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,85,863/-.

¶22

No representation on behalf of applicant. This case was taken up on

¶23

12.05.2023, when applicant was permitted to deposit 10% of the outstanding amount

SA No.264 of 2023

02.01.2024

in three weeks and another 10% within five weeks thereafter and notice was ordered to respondent returnable by 28.07.2023. On 28.07.2023, applicant had reported compliance of conditional order and also filed AOS evidencing service of notice to respondent on 19.05.2023. As there was no representation on behalf of respondent, case was adjourned to 18.10.2023 for appearance of respondent. Even on 18.10.2023, as there was no representation for respondent, fresh notice was ordered to respondent institution once again. Accordingly applicant had filed AOS, evidencing service of notice to respondent on 23.09.2023 and 22.09.2023 instance. Despite acknowledging notices from this Tribunal, there is no representation on behalf of respondent institution.

¶28

Respondent institution is called absent and set ex-parte.

¶29

In the result, SA stands allowed. Possession Notice dated 06.04.2023 is hereby set aside and possession is restored to mortgagor. Respondent institution is directed not to debit the subject impugned Possession Notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account, for their default of non-appearance, despite acknowledging notices from this Tribunal twice.

¶30

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶31

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶32

A copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned as per extant

¶33

guidelines.

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in Open Court on this the 02^nd day of January, 2024)

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

G Sudhakaran v. Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Sudhakaran v. Iifl Home 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

Mr G Karthikeyan versus South Indian Bank

Mohideen Abdul Razak a versus Icici Bank Limited

Mrs S Vidya versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Vasam Traders

S K Jeevanantham versus Indian Bank

Wayne Burt Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. versus LIC Housing Finance Limited