Allowed

Kanwaljit Singh Alias Kawaljit Singh and Another v. Hdfc Bank Limited and Another

DRT2 Aug 2024SA/77/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a securitization application for quashing a Section 13(4) possession notice issued by HDFC Bank. The court found the notice defective due to the non-service of the prior Section 13(2) notice and inaccurate asset details, holding respondents to have initiated proceedings in violation of the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application allowed; proceedings under the Act initiated by respondents quashed; liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Kanwaljit Singh Alias Kawaljit Singh and Another versus Hdfc… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

PRESIDED OVER: SH. MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.77/2024

¶4

Date of Institution: 22.02.2024 Date of Decision: 02.08.2024

¶5

Sh. Kanwaljit Singh @ Kawaljit Singh S/o Sh. Balwinder Singh R/o Village Khwaspur, Khadoor Sahib, Taran Taran, Punjab-143407

¶6

Smt. Parminder Kaur W/o Sh. Kanwaljit Singh @ Kawaljit Singh R/o Village Khwaspur, Khadoor Sahib, Taran Taran, Punjab-143407

¶7

--Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

HDFC Bank, through its Authorised Officer Branch Office: First Floor of M.C. No. B-35-922-K, Sunder Nagar, Near MBD Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab-141012

¶10

HDFC Bank, through its Authorised Officer Registered Office: HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-4000013

¶11

--Respondent

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Sunil Kumar Dhaiya, Advocate for Applicants Respondent already ex parte vide order dated 16.04.2024

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

(1) This Securitization Application was filed under Section 17 (1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) to set aside the notice under Section 13(4) dated 07.02.2024 issued by the respondent and to set aside demand dated 28.11.2023 and to set aside all

¶15

¶16

SA/77/2024

¶17

KANWALJIT SINGH @ KAWALJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. HDFC BANK AND ANOTHER

¶18

subsequent proceedings being illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act.

¶19

(2) It was stated in the application that applicants have availed home loan from respondents in the month of March 2018 and respondents have sanctioned Rs,5,57,505/- on 28.03.2018 and thereafter Top-Up loan of Rs.15,30,000/on 12.04.2018 and Rs.5,86,000/- on 25.04.2019. It was further, stated that the loan was to be repaid in equated monthly installments of Rs.6,883/- in 120 months and EMI of Rs.15,157/- in 180 months and EMI of Rs.5,996/- in 180 months. It was further stated that mother of the borrowers had ailment of cancer, therefore several lacs of rupees were incurred on account of medical expenses. It was further stated that substantial amount to the tune of more than Rs.10,00,000/- against the loan of Rs.26,73,000/- has already been paid to the respondent Bank. It was further stated that a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was received by applicants. It was further stated that mortgaged property is the sole residence of applicants. It was further stated that no notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was ever served. It was further stated that details of mortgaged property mentioned in the possession notice is different from the actual property. It was further stated that in light of above possession notice dated 07.02.2024 is defective and therefore, the same may be quashed.

¶20

(3) After service of notice upon respondents none has appeared and no reply was filed. Respondents were proceeded ex parte on 16.04.2024.

¶21

(4) I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. Sunil Kumar Dhaiya, Advocate and gone through the record carefully. None is present on behalf of respondents. (5) It was argued by Sh. Sunil Kumar Dhaiya, Advocate that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was never issued and served upon applicants as per Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It was further argued that applicants came to know about the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act only when notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was served. It was further argued that details of secured asset mentioned in the notice under Section

¶22

¶23

SA/77/2024

¶24

KANWALJIT SINGH @ KAWALJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER VS. HDFC BANK AND ANOTHER

¶25

13(4) of the Act are different from the actual details of secured asset. Therefore, possession notice dated 07.02.2024 may be quashed and SA may be allowed.

¶26

(6) Perusal of record shows that there is no rebuttal on behalf of respondents to the allegations advanced by applicants. Nothing is on record to show that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was served upon applicants in accordance with law. Nothing is on record to show that SARFAESI proceedings initiated by respondents are in accordance with Act and Rules made thereunder. Non receiving of demand notice is fault on the part of respondents.

¶27

(7) In light of above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal has no other option to accept the contentions of applicants as true. Accordingly, present SA is liable to be allowed.

¶28

(8) SA is allowed . Proceedings initiated by respondents under the Act are hereby quashed. It is made clear that respondents may initiate fresh proceedings under the Act in accordance with law.

¶29

Record be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶30

Date: 02.08.2024

¶31

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal.

¶32

(MRIDULESHKUMARSINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Kanwaljit Singh Alias Kawaljit Singh and Another v. Hdfc Bank Limited and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanwaljit Singh Alias Kawaljit Singh and Another v. Hdfc Bank Limited and Another

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

Idbi Bank Limited versus Amanjot Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Lakshmi Traders and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Raman Gupta and Bros and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Paramjeet Singh and Others

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Nishan Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Mukhtiar Singh and Another