Allowed

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. arcil in its capacity as trustee of Arcil Sbps I Trust repy by its authorized officer Yuvek J v. v Ismail and others

DRT17 Feb 2025MA/53/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an asset reconstruction case, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application to add ARCIL as an assignee applicant, permitting it to conduct recovery proceedings transferred hereafter as assignee.

What did the court decide?

MA No. 53/25 allowed; Applicant directed to carry out amendment and file amended copy of Original Application.

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. arcil in its capacity… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 53/25 in TA No.47/2024

¶2

17.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. No.53 of 2025 in T.A. No.47 of 2024

¶8

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL) The Ruby, 10^th Floor, 29, Senapathi Bapati Marg Dadar West Mumbai – 400 028 Rep. by its Authorised Signatory ….Proposed Applicant / Assignee

¶9

Indian Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Registered Office at One International Center, Tower 1, 4^th Floor, S.B. Marg, Elphinstone Mumbai – 400 013

¶10

….Applicant / Assignor

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

V. Ismail S/o Mr. V. Rowther Proprietor of M/s Golden Sun Dairy No.2/1, Thangavelu Pilai Street Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 021

¶13

Dilsath Begum W/o V. Ismail No.2/1, Thangavelu Pilai Street Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 021 3. I. Abdul Majeedh S/o V. Ismail No.2/1, Thangavelu Pilai Street Old Washermanpet, Chennai – 600 021 ….Respondents / Defendants Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s Abitha Banu

¶14

MA 53/25 in TA No.47/2024

¶15

¶16

17.02.2025

¶17

: - ORDER ON MA NO.53 OF 2025- :

¶18

The Original Application is filed by Indusind Bank Limited, against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Respondents 2 and 3, who are Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.55,27,996.30p (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Six and Thirty Paise only) with further interest and costs.

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., MA No.53/2024 along with affidavit of Authorised Representative – Mr. Yuvek J seeking to permit applicant herein to be added as Assignee Applicant in place of applicant viz., India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited to conduct the TRC No.369 of 2023 in TA No.47 of 2024.

¶20

It is submitted that the OA No.74/2018 (before DRT-II) initiated by Indusind Bank Limited i.e., original applicant bank was allowed vide final order dated 12.07.2018 and DRC No.389 of 2018 came to be issued in terms of the final order. During the pendency of OA before DRT-II, Indusind Bank has assigned the debts to M/s India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vide Assignment Deed dated 22.03.2018.

¶21

Thereafter, OA along with DRC was transferred to this Tribunal in view of bifurcation of jurisdiction and re-numbered as TA No.47 of 2024 and TRC No.369 of 2023 respectively.

¶22

During the pendency of TRC, applicant institution M/s India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited has assigned various loan accounts including the subject Loan of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, who are defendants / borrowers

¶23

MA 53/25 in TA No.47/2024

¶24

¶25

17.02.2025

¶26

of credit facilities from Indusind Bank Limited (who had subsequently assigned the debts to present applicant institution viz., M/s India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited) through an Assignment Agreement bearing Document No.14280 / 2022 dated 20.09.2022, registered at the Office of Sub Registrar Mumbai (Bandra).

¶27

It is therefore submitted that applicant company in the capacity of being an Assignee of M/s India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited in respect of loan account of respondents 2 and 3, may be permitted to be added as a party in the TRC No.369 of 2023 in the above TA No.47 of 2024.

¶28

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶29

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.55,27,996.30p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. OA came to be allowed vide final order dated 12.07.2018 and DRC No.389 of 2018 was issued. Subsequently, due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, OA was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.47 of 2024 and DRC was renumbered as TRC No.269 of 2023 respectively. During the pendency of recovery proceedings, M/s India Bulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited / applicant institution had assigned the debt along with underlying securities to the assignee Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL) vide Assignment Agreement dated 14280 of 2022 dated 22.03.2018.

¶30

In view of the fact that the ARCIL being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal feels it apt to allow

¶31

MA 53/25 in TA No.47/2024

¶32

17.02.2025

¶33

¶34

the MA and permit the assignee to continue the TA / TRC in place of assignor bank, as per the Assignment Agreement.

¶35

Accordingly, MA No.53/25 stands allowed. Applicant to carry out amendment and file amended copy of OA, upon which Registry is directed to

¶36

issue DRC substituting assignee in place of applicant bank.

¶37

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER,

¶38

DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶39

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 17^th

¶40

day of February, 2025)

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. arcil in its capacity as trustee of Arcil Sbps I Trust repy by its authorized officer Yuvek J v. v Ismail and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. arcil in its capacity as trustee of Arcil Sbps I Trust repy by its authorized officer Yuvek J v. v Ismail and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gowtham Raja versus Indo Star Capital Finance Limited

Kmadeshwaran versus State Bank of India

Sri Raja Rajeshwari Transport versus Indian Bank

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/S Shristi Construction Quipments

Yes Bank versus M s Win Star Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Star Sandas LLP