Allowed

Maharaj Singh Sindhu v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

DRT10 Sept 2025SA/104/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's Securitization Application under the SARFAESI Act, holding it was not time-barred. The applicant alleged full settlement and payment but lack of a No Objection Certificate led to a possession notice, which the Tribunal set aside, directing the respondent to release title deeds.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the SARFAESI action and possession notice; directed respondents to release title deeds within 10 days.

Maharaj Singh Sindhu versus Iifl Home Finance Limited — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA/104/2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/104/2024 MAHARAJ SINGH SINDHU Vs IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED

¶4

10.09.2025 ITEM NO.21

¶5

Argued by: Mr. Nafees Ahmad Advocate along with the Applicant (SA) Mr. Vineet Sehgal Advocate along with Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Officer for the Respondent FI

¶6

Maharaj Singh Sindhu (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against IIFL Home Finance Limited (Respondent FI).

¶7

Admittedly, Respondent FI had sanctioned the following credit facilities to the Applicant:-

¶8

Type of Facility. Loan Number	Amount Sanctioned
Loan account No.851625	Rs. 32,50,000/- insurance	including
Loan account No.937625	Rs. 21,00,000/- insurance	including
Loan account No.941062	Rs. 6,10,116/-

¶9

To secure the same, Applicant had created security interest in respect of the following property:-

¶10

Property No.05 & 06, admeasuring 4744 sq. yards, i.e. 237 sq. yards, each Kh-16/20/1/2, Mauja Sahupura, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, 121004, Haryana, India.

¶11

Applicant states that on 12.08.2021, he suffered a heart-attack. He had to spend a lot of money on his treatment. Accordingly, he could not make the payment in time. Further, during the Covid-19 also, he suffered huge losses and his payment was stuck-up. It is stated that the Respondent declared his accounts NPA. On 11.01.2022, Respondent FI issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act claiming that a sum of Rs.21,47,026/-

¶12

¶13

SA/104/2024

¶14

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶15

was due in account No.937625; Rs.28,68,323/- in account No.851625 and Rs.5,89,758/- in account No.941062 as on 07.01.2022 with interest. It is stated that the Respondent did not serve the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on him. Further his accounts were also declared NPA wrongly and against the RBI guidelines. On 07.04.2022, the Respondent also wrongly issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. However, the notice under Section 13(4) was also not served upon him. Applicant also states that by mis-representing the facts, the Respondent also obtained the order dated 29.11.2022 from the DM under Section 14 of the Act. Applicant states that on coming to know of the fact that the Respondent had filed the application under Section 14 of the Act before DM, he had approached the Respondent for settlement. As per letter dated 15.09.2022 of the Respondent, a sum of Rs.27,02,830/- was due in loan account No.851625. After waiver, the account was settled for Rs.26,23,394/-. Further, as per letter dated 15.09.2022, a sum of Rs.20,26,496/- was due in account No.937625. After waiver, the account was settled for Rs.19,65,717/-. Applicant states that as per the settlement, he had paid Rs.26,23,394/- vide cheque No.560035 on 21.09.2022. Further, he had also deposited Rs.13,75,000/- on 21.09.2022 vide cheque No.560037. Again, vide cheque No.091341 dated 21.09.2022, he had deposited Rs.5,90,717/-. As per his Bank account statement, the said sums have been deducted from his account. It is stated that the Applicant closed loan account No.851625 and loan account No.937625, as per settlement. After making the payments on 16.10.2023, he demanded NOC from the Respondent FI for both the loan accounts. He had sent an E-mail to that effect. However, the Respondent did not issue the NOC. He had sent a reminder on 19.10.2023. On 30.07.2023, Respondent issued the NOC regarding loan account No.937625. The Company did not release the insurance amount. The total amount of insurance comes to approximately

¶16

¶17

SA/104/2024

¶18

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶19

Rs. 3,50,000/-. In respect of loan account No.941062, he had deposited Rs.20,559/-. Again, a sum of Rs.20,559/- and Rs.49,355/- were deducted from his account on 01.10.2023. He complained to the Company that the more amount has been deducted from his account. However, the Company officials informed him that the amount has been deducted in respect of loan account No.851625 as a sum of Rs.6,83,563/- is due. Applicant has alleged that he has already paid the amounts due in loan account No.851625 and 937625 on 21.09.2022. However, the Respondent misled the District Magistrate. Accordingly, on 06.02.2024, the Tehsildar issued the possession notice for taking the possession on 20.02.2024. He got this letter on 07.02.2024 and filed the present SA on 17.02.2024. Applicant states that he is still ready to settle the accounts. However, the Respondent has not issued the NOC regarding loan account No.851625. In case, an NOC is issued regarding this loan, he would get the insurance of an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and he is ready to deposit the same in the pending loan account No.941062 in one stretch. It is stated that as per letter dated 14.02.2024, a sum of Rs.2,90,974/- in respect of loan account No.941062 is due. He is ready to pay the said amount in case the amount of insurance is given to him. On these facts, Applicant filed the present SA for setting aside the letter dated 06.02.2024 issued by Tehsildar and for setting aside the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by District Magistrate.

¶20

Respondent, in the reply, has alleged that vide sanction letter dated 29.08.2018, it had sanctioned Home Equity Loans bearing No.851625, 937625 and 941062. In fact, the Applicant and his co-borrower had filed the application on 30.07.2018 for a loan of Rs.32,50,000/-. Applicant had created security interest in respect of Property No.05 & 06, admeasuring 4744 sq. yards, i.e. 237 sq. yards, each Kh-16/20/1/2, Mauja Sahupura, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, 121004, Haryana. However,

¶21

¶22

SA/104/2024

¶23

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶24

Applicant did not make the repayment as per the repayment schedule and the Respondent declared the account NPA on 04.01.2022. Respondent has also alleged that in the present SA, Applicant has challenged the notice under Section 13(2) dated 11.01.2022; notice under Section 13(4) dated 07.04.2022 and the DM order dated 29.11.2022. The SA was filed on 17.02.2024. Accordingly, the SA is time-barred. It is also stated that the Respondent had given many opportunities to the Applicant to make the repayment. However, the Applicant did not make the repayment. It is stated that as on 02.03.2024, a sum of Rs.6,35,946.61 and Rs.2,93,017.92 were due in respect of loan account No.851625 & 937625 respectively. Applicant had deposited the whole of the money due in respect of loan account No.937625. Accordingly, the NOC was issued regarding the same. However, the Applicant did not make the repayment in the other two loan accounts. Accordingly, the Respondent was compelled to initiate the SARFAESI action. In fact, the Applicant has filed the present SA with the sole motive to delay the recovery proceedings. Accordingly, it is stated that the SA be dismissed.

¶25

Drawing my attention to the letter dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure-A4), Mr. Nafees Ahmed, counsel for the Applicant, has argued that on 15.09.2022, all the loan accounts were settled. Respondent had allowed him some waiver. As per the settlement, Applicant had made the payment. Despite that the Respondent did not issue the NOC. Accordingly, the Applicant had written them E-mail on 16.10.2023 stating that despite the fact that he has made the payment in loan account No.851625 and loan account No.937625, the Respondent had not issued the NOC. This was followed by another E-mail dated 19.10.2023 reiterating the same facts. Again, Applicant had sent an E-mail on 26.02.2023; 06.09.2023 and 30.07.2023. However, on 06.02.2024, Applicant got a letter from Tehsildar

¶26

¶27

SA/104/2024

¶28

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶29

that Respondent would take the possession on 20.02.2024. Mr. Nafees Ahmad submitted that the Applicant has made whole of the repayment. Despite that, the Respondent has not closed the accounts. Accordingly, the SARFAESI action be set-aside.

¶30

Per contra , Mr. Vineet Sehgal, counsel for the FI has argued that the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was served upon the Applicant in 2022. However, the Applicant had filed the present SA on 17.02.2024. Accordingly, the application is time-barred. He has further argued that Applicant has not placed on the record any letter from the Respondent stating that there has been settlement between the parties. Applicant has produced on the record some calculations and writings with pen on the letter dated 15.09.2022. However, from this letter and writings, nothing can be made out. Applicant has failed to establish that there was any settlement between the parties and he has made the whole of the payment. There is no merit in the SA and the same be dismissed.

¶31

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶32

I am of the considered view that as far as the contention of the Respondent that the SA is time-barred is concerned, there is no force in the same. The Respondent has failed to prove the service of notice under Section 13(4) of the Act. Applicant in the SA has categorically mentioned that the notice under Section 13(4) was not served upon him. He has further alleged that he has reckoned the limitation from 06.02.2024 when the Tehsildar had served the possession notice upon him. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the SA is within limitation. I am also of the considered view that the SARFAESI action initiated by the Respondent is wrong. The case of the Applicant is that he has made the payment as per the amount settled between him and the Respondent. There is no denying the fact that there is no letter on the record from the Respondent that there has

¶33

¶34

SA/104/2024

¶35

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶36

been some settlement between the parties, yet, the fact remains that the Applicant has produced on the record a number of letters. One of such letters is dated 16.10.2023 (Annexure-A/7) wherein Applicant has alleged that he has made the payments by cheques on 20.09.2022 which were encashed on 26.09.2022 and 29.09.2022 respectively and accordingly, loan account No.851625 and 937625 should have been closed and the NOC should have been issued. Respondent has not denied the receipt of this letter and has also not produced on the record any material that the Respondent had objected to the contents of this letter. Further, the Applicant had written a letter on 19.10.2023 wherein he had again made mention of his letter dated 16.10.2023. Applicant has also produced on the record a letter dated 26.10.2023 wherein he has made the same assertion. Applicant has also produced on the record a letter dated 06.11.2023. Respondent has produced on the record a letter dated 30.07.2023 stating that account No.937625 has been closed. During the proceedings, the Applicant had made a statement that a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- was due and he would make the payment of the same by 25.03.2024. Applicant has produced on the record a receipt of the payment of the said sum dated 21.03.2024. I am of the considered view that the Applicant does not owe any money to the Respondent and the Respondent has unnecessarily harassed him by not issuing the ‘No Objection Certificate’ and demanding the money. Accordingly, I hereby allow the present SA. Respondent is directed to release the title-deeds to the Applicant within 10 days.

¶37

A copy of this Final Order be furnished to all the parties free of cost.

¶38

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (A.S. Narang) Dated: 10.09.2025 Presiding Officer RBY DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional Charge)

¶39

Maharaj Singh Sindhu v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaj Singh Sindhu v. Iifl Home Finance Limited

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

Bank of India versus Vishesh Enterprises

Bank of India versus J P Apparels

Canara Bank versus M/S R B Builders and Ors.

Anil versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Neeraj Electronics

Punjab National Bank versus Madhav Murari Garg