Dismissed

Surjeet Singh v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT7 Jun 2024SA/351/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Securitization Application filed by Surjeet Singh against Bank of Maharashtra. The court found that the applicant was a partner in a firm secured by a loan, and the bank validly served notice demands under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal held the applicant's plea of illiteracy and lack of notice meritless based on postal receipts and evidence, dismissing the

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Appeal was dismissed, leaving the bank's action for possession intact. Pending internal applications were disposed off accordingly.

Surjeet Singh versus Bank of Maharashtra — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2024)

SA No.351/2023

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, CHANDIGARH

¶5

SA/351/2023 SURJEET SINGH Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶6

07.06.2024

¶7

Item No. 12

¶8

Argued by: Sh. Raghuvinder Singh, Counsel for the applicant. Sh. Sumit Narang, Counsel for respondent bank.

¶9

Surjeet Singh (Applicant) 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 Bank of Maharashtra and another (Respondents).

¶10

Admittedly, vide sanction letter dated 13.01.2016 (Exhibit R- 1/1) Bank of Maharashtra (respondent No.1) had sanctioned a C.C Limit of Rs.160.00 Lacs to M/s Dhimam PK Associates (respondent No.2 a partnership firm comprising Sh. Sammy Dhiman; Sh. Janak Nan(ian and Sh. Surjeet Singh (applicant) as partners). This limit was renewed vide renewal sanction letter dated 08.03.2017 (Exhibit R- 1/2). Applicant also executed the guarantee deed on 15.01.2016 (Exhibit R-1/3). To secure the loan he had also mortgaged his residential house measuring 15 Marlas (453.75 sq. yards) situated near Khanna Hospital, Ward No.16, Aman Nagar, Ferozpur Road, Zira, Punjab, in favor of the bank. Applicant had created equitable mortgage in favor of the bank and had executed mongagor’s letter vid9 confi,mation of Equitable Mongage dated 05.05.2016 (Exhibit R-1/4). This „,o„nt b„„n, i,*,gul,„ ,nd ,n 02.01.2019, the bank categorized the same as non-performing asset (NPA). On 04.01.2019, th, b,nl, i,s„,d th, „otic, „nd„ Se,ti,n 13(2) t, the applicant and respondent No.2 (Exhibit R-1/5) demanding a sum o Rs. 1,64,11,411/- with interest. Smt. Mandeep Dhiman stood guarantor for this loan who vide letter/reply dated 25.01.2019 (Exhibit R-1/6)

¶11

¶12

SA No.351/2023

¶13

filed a very vague reply. On 06.02.2019 (Exhibit R-1/7) bank responded to the same and declined her request. On 18.03.2019, bank issued the notice under Section 13(4) (Exhibit R-1/8). Thereafter, vide order dated 10.07.2019, D.M, Fatehgarh Sahib granted the pennission under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act (Exhibit R-1/9). The bank tried to take the possession. However, the applicant alongwith 30/35 persons blocked the way of the bank officials and the bank proceeded with declaring him a willful defaulter. The photograph of the applicant was published in the newspaper (Exhibit R- 1/10).

¶14

Applicant in the SA has alleged that the bank never apprised him of any such default by respondent No.2. He was never served with demand notice. He is an illiterate person not aware of the nittygritty of the C.C Account. On 03.02.2023, the bank had issued the notice for taking over the possession of the residential house. He approached the bank for making any suitable way out. However, he came to know that bank is taking the possession. He tried to approach the co-borr'ower and came to know that he was undergoing imprisonment. It is alleged that the co-bon'ower had also filed SA No.61/2019. During the pendency of the SA, the bank took the possession and the said SA withdrawn on 1 1.08.2023 . Applicant states that was not aware that the loan was not been paid regularly. He came to know on 09.01.2023, that respondent No.2 was taken the possession of the house of the guarantor without service of the notice. He had approached the bank for settlement of the dues. He was also apprised that a sum of Rs.6.00 Lacs is shown as pending in the house loan in respect of his personal house loan. In the SA applicant has challenged the possession notice dated 08.10.2023. He has alleged that the loan account was not declared NPA properly. In substance applicant has challenged the SARFAESI action in the SA.

¶15

Respondent bank in the reply has denied the case of the applicant and has alleged th,t ,11 th, „,ti„, w,„, duly ,e„,,d UP,„ the applicant and there is no merit in the present SA.

¶16

¶17

SA No.351/2023

¶18

Mr. Raghuvinder Singh, Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is ac illiterate person. He was not aware of the nittygritty of the C.C limit. He was never infonned by the bank that the account has been declared NPA. He was never served with the notices. The bank is out to dispossess him from the sole residential house and the bank is also out to sell the same. The action of the bank is illegal.

¶19

Per ComM Mr. Sumit Narang, Counsel for the respondent bank has argued that the applicant was served notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Despite that, the applicant and other partners did not make the repayment. The bank has no other option except to take the possession and sell the secured asset. He has argued that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶20

1 have considered the rival contentions.

¶21

The bank has produced on the record sanction letter dated 13.01.2016 (Exhibit R- 1/1) which shows that applicant is one of the partners in M/s Dhiman PK Associates, which was granted a C.C Limit of Rs.160.00 Lacs. Bank has also produced on the record agreement (Exhibit R- 1/3) dated 15.01.2016. Bank has also produced on the record notice under Section 13(2) (Exhibit R-1/5) dated 04.01.2019. This notice has been addressed to the applicant. Apart from this, bank has produced on the record copies of the postal receipts. A look at the postal receipts would show that the address o' the applicant on the SA is the same as in the postal receipt. Bank has also produced on the record possession notice (Exhibit R-1/8) along with the photographs and newspaper clippings.

¶22

1 am of the considered view that the case of the applicant is neither here and nor there. There is no merit in the present SA. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

SA No.351/2023

All the pending IAs, if any are also stand disposed off accordingly. Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per

¶27

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

¶28

’ ;- = 1, fLTLp _ I ' ;:;:::( ' 1 \ I :1 Pronounced in open Court Ch;ndiga rh 07.06.2024 PANKAJ

¶29

Surjeet Singh v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjeet Singh v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Suresafe Movers Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sh.Rajender Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Koshinder

Ms Sun Industries versus Punjab National Bank

Mrs Bhavnaben Mahendrabhai Kariya and Anr. versus State Bank of India

Ms Krishna Construction and Others versus Canara Bank