Dismissed

Anita Marwaha and Another v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

DRT22 Jul 2025SA/148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Securitization Application filed by borrowers to set aside a Section 13(4) notice claiming default. The Tribunal held that applicants failed to comply with a prior order requiring payment of outstanding dues within six months. Since the primary objective was loan recovery and orders were not complied with, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for setting aside notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act dismissed; record consigned to record room.

Anita Marwaha and Another versus Tata Capital Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

PRESIDED OVER: SH. MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.148/2025

¶4

Date of Institution: 09.05.2025 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025

¶5

Smt. Anita Marwaha widow of Sh. Vinod Kumar,

¶6

Sh. Nitin Marwaha S/o Late. Sh. Vinod Kumar Both are R/o B-IV-1579, Meena Bazar, Narrian Mohalla, Ludhiana through their General Power of Attorney holder S. Sarabjinder Singh Bhullar, S/o Late. S. Mehal Singh R/o 142-B, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana

¶7

--Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited, through its Managing Director, 11^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400013

¶10

Branch Office: SCO No.143, Ground Floor, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana-141001

¶11

--Respondent

¶12

Argued by: Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate for Applicants Respondent already ex parte vide order dated 09.06.2025

¶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 notice under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act.

¶15

(2) Initially this SA was filed against two respondents but during the proceedings of the SA, IA No. 982/2025 was filed by applicants seeking permission to drop the proceedings of respondent No.2 from the array of parties. The same was allowed on the risk of learned counsel for applicants on 09.06.2025.

¶16

(3) It was stated in the application that Late. Sh. Vinod Kumar i.e., husband of applicant No.1 and father of applicant No.2 had applied for sanctioning of the two Home Loans i.e., on 22.02.2019 to the tune of

¶17

¶18

SA/148/2025

¶19

ANITA MARWAHA AND ANOTHER VS. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶20

Rs.24,35,000/- and on 13.05.2019 to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- from respondent against the property situated at Village Barewal Awana describable as Plot No.35 C (old) and Plot No.48 A (new) compromised in Khasra No.708,709, B XIX 1388 D 48 A, Lane No.01, Dev Nagar, Hambran Road, Ludhiana; that respondent vide Home Equity Loan Sanction Letter dated 14.05.2019 sanctioned a home loan amounting to Rs.24,35,000/-to be paid in 180 months with monthly installments of Rs.28,737/- and also sanctioned another loan vide Home Loan Sanction Letter dated 07.05.2019 amounting to Rs.20 Lac to be paid in 240 months with monthly installments of Rs.18,317/-; that pursuant to the sanctions, the respondent disbursed the loan amount of Rs.24,35,000/- in the loan account No. 10646978 of Late. Vinod Kumar and Rs.20,00,000/- in loan account no. 10646917 also of Late Vinod Kumar; that sanction letters were signed by Vinod Kumar (now deceased) as primary applicant and the present applicants signed as co-applicants; that the loan was sanctioned in the name of Vinod Kumar (now deceased) and repayment as per special condition No.7 was to be taken from Vinod Kumar’s saving account; that the officials of respondent apprised to the deceased/borrower Vinod Kumar that as per the guidelines of the RBI, the insurance policy was must and he compelled that deceased/borrower Vinod Kumar to take the insurance policy from sister concern of the respondent i.e. Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, Vinod Kumar who was in dire need of money and on being pressurized by the respondent got the loan insured from Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited,; that deceased Vinod Kumar was regularly paying the installments and had already paid 33 installments of Rs.28,733/- amounting to Rs.9,48.189/and Rs.18,317/- amounting to Rs.6,04,461/- against both the loan accounts; that Vinod Kumar passed away on 24.03.2023 since the loan was insured the applicants were under the impression that loan amount would be paid by the insurance company so apart from their inability they did not deposit further installments; that applicants were shocked to receive a notice dated 31.05.2023 under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon

¶21

¶22

SA/148/2025

¶23

ANITA MARWAHA AND ANOTHER VS. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶24

the applicants to discharge their loan liabilities amounting to Rs,54,53,074/- due and payable under both the loan agreements as on 31.05.2023 within 60 days from the date of said notice failing which the respondent shall take action under Section 13(4) of the Act; that after receipt of above said notices the applicants approached the office of respondent and informed the concerned officials about the sudden demise of the primary applicant i.e. Vinod Kumar and requested to get the loan repaid from insurance company which is sister concern of the respondent; that the official informed the applicants that primary applicant of the loan i.e. Vinod Kumar was not insured and son of the primary applicant i.e. applicant no.2 was insured member in the policy and Sh. Vinod Kumar is the nominee of the policy; that applicant no.2 was the co-applicant of Home Loan; that respondent is malafidely trying to recover excess amount which is much more than the principal amount from the deceased’s legal representatives, who are unable to pay the said amount; that insurance policy was valid from 16.05.2019 to 15.05.2031; that total onus to pay the unpaid loan was onto the Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited,; that applicants approached Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana under Section 22(c) of the Legal Services Authorities, Act for restraining the respondent and Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, from claiming loan amount borrowed by Vinod Kumar and also that the same should be settled by way of recovering the amount from the insurance company i.e. Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited, in accordance with the insurance policy issued under the Certificate No.1000000902 and Membership No. 10549578; that further requested that the respondent be restrained from taking any coercive action against the property and the applicants; that Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat after considering the facts and documents, issued notices to the respondent and Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited vide order dated 20.07.2023 and after finding a prima facie case in favour of the applicants ex-parte interim directions were issued to the respondent and Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited not to take any coercive

¶25

¶26

SA/148/2025

¶27

ANITA MARWAHA AND ANOTHER VS. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶28

action against the applicants till next date and the matter was adjourned to 04.09.2023; that even after the convey the above said order to the respondent the officials of respondent continued to threaten the applicants for making the repayment and also adopted coercive method by serving a notice dated 19.08.2023 on the applicants to handover the possession of the property; that applicants informed the officials of the respondent, who visited their house at odd hours that Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat had issued directions not to take coercive action till next date of hearing before that Court i.e., 04.09.2023 but the officials tried to take possession forcibly; that respondent duly appeared before the Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat and time was granted to file written statement and the interim directions were not vacated by the Ld. Court; that the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat, the respondent approached the Hon’ble High Court vide CWP No.25537 of 2023 for seeking setting aside of above said order on the ground that Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat is devoid of jurisdiction to pass restraining order; that vide order dated 14.11.2023 the Hon’ble High Court issued notice to the applicants and the operation of the order dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat, Ludhiana was stayed till the next date of hearing; that the applicants received a notice under Section 14(1)(a) dated 04.04.2024 from Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) informing therein that vide order dated 29.01.2024 District Magistrate had passed the order for handing over the physical possession of the mortgaged property of the applicants to Bank/Financial Institution; that it was directed to the applicants either to handover the physical possession to the Bank/Financial institution themselves to the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) before 26.04.2024 or in case of nondelivery of possession the physical possession of the property would be acquired with the help of the police on 29.04.2024 at 11:00 am; that aforesaid notice applicants approached this Tribunal by way of SA No.142/2024; that the aforesaid SA No.142/2024 came up for hearing before this Hon’ble Tribunal on 26.04.2024 and in view of the readiness and

¶29

¶30

SA/148/2025

¶31

ANITA MARWAHA AND ANOTHER VS. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶32

undertaking of the applicants to pay the entire amount due of Rs.54,53,074/- as mentioned in the notice dated 31.03.2023 under Section 13(2) of the Act, the said SA was disposed of vide order dated 26.04.2024 and the applicants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.13 Lacs in the loan account on the next day and the respondent was restrained from taking physical possession of the secured asset in light of the possession notice dated 04.04.2024 issued by the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) and the applicants were further directed to deposit the rest total outstanding amount in the loan accounts within six months from the date of order; that further clarified that if the applicants failed to deposit Rs.13 Lacs in their loan account by the next day, respondents were free to take possession on the date fixed and also that if the applicants failed to deposit the rest outstanding amount in their loan account within six months from the date of order then the respondents were free to proceed further under the Act from the stage as on that day; that applicants immediately in compliance with the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal deposited an amount of Rs.13 Lacs vide Receipt No.43729337/1977425 dated 26.04.2024 in Account No.10649678, that thereafter the applicants duly deposited the remaining amount dated 14.07.2024, 16.09.2024, 08.10.2024, 16.09.2024, 17.07.2024 and 08.10.2024 in due compliance with the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal; that though the full amount of Rs.54,53,074/as mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 31.05.2023 has already been repaid but the respondent inspite of repeated requests has refused to issue “No Due Certificate” and has also declined to return the other loan documents including the registered sale deed of the secured asset; that applicants through their GPA seeking issuance of No Due Certificate and return of other documents pertaining to the Account Nos.10649678 and 10646917 but since no reply was received from the respondent, applicants were constrained to get a legal notice dated 15.10.2024 issued through their counsel for release of the relevant documents; that applicants received a

¶33

¶34

SA/148/2025

¶35

ANITA MARWAHA AND ANOTHER VS. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶36

reply dated 29.10.2024 from the respondent to their legal notice and vide the said reply the respondent has stated that the Ld. DRT-III, Chandigarh vide order dated 26.04.2024 had given a direction to the applicants to deposit an amount of Rs.13 Lacs latest by 27.04.2024 and to pay total outstanding amount within 06 months without even issuance of any notice and opportunity of hearing to the respondent and that as per their records the applicants have failed to pay the total outstanding amount and that they were still under liability to pay an amount of Rs.5,97,235.39/- against the loan Account No.10646917 and that without closure of the loan account, NOC and loan documents cannot be released; that applicants who have fully paid the amount of Rs.54,53,074/- i.e., the amount which was conveyed in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 31.05.2023 thereafter, the applicants had approached the Ld. Permanent Lok Adalat and stay had been granted vide order dated 20.07.2023 are being blackmailed into paying money over and above the legally due amount by the respondent illegally and unjustly; that aforesaid precarious situation the applicants approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of CWP No.1878 of 2025 however the same was disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2025 and liberty was afforded to the applicants to approach the Hon’ble Tribunal; that presently the applicants have been served with the notice dated 12.02.2025 under Section 13(2) of the Act vide which an absolutely unjust amount of Rs.4,41,370/- is being alleged to be due under loan agreement 10646917 and an amount of Rs.5,98,136/is said to be due against loan agreement no.10649678 totally to Rs.10,39,506/-; that arbitrary and unjust approach of the respondent, the applicants approached this Tribunal by way of MA No.42/2025 in SA No.142/2024 for seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to issue ‘No Due Certificate’ to the applicants and also handover other documents in the form the original sale deed etc., pertaining to applicants property; that in the MA No.42/2025; notice is yet to be issued in the MA; that applicants undertake to withdraw the said MA on the date fixed or any time as this Tribunal may direct; that during the pendency of

¶37

¶38

SA/148/2025

¶39

ANITA MARWAHA AND ANOTHER VS. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶40

the aforesaid MA No.42/2025, applicants had submitted objections to the 13(2) notice on 14.03.2025 but without deciding the said objections applicants have now been served with a notice dated 29.04.2025 under Section 13(4) of the Act and secured asset of the applicants has been taken in possession illegally and unreasonably; that applicants have been asked to pay an amount of Rs.10,39,506/- alongwith other charges; that action of the respondent company is wrong, unjust, unwarranted and violative of principles of natural justice, equity, fair play, against the provisions of the Act and against the mandatory guidelines; that applicants inspite of their acute financial hardship had never been given any option under the One Time Settlement Policy but still in order to settle the account and to buy peace of mind had paid the entire amount as mentioned in the earlier notice under Section 13(2) of the Act; that respondents have proceeded with the SARFAESI proceedings even after the compliance of the order dated 26.04.2024 by the applicants of this Hon’ble Tribunal. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by respondents are illegal and void as these are in violation of order issued by a court of law. It was prayed that the present SA may kindly be allowed. (4) After service of notice upon respondent none has appeared and no reply was filed. Respondent was proceeded ex parte on 09.06.2025. Name of respondent No.2 (Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited) was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 09.06.2025.

¶41

(5) I have heard arguments advanced by Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate and gone through the record carefully. None is present on behalf of respondent. (6) It was argued by Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate that applicants had received possession letter dated 04.04.2024 issued by Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) in which possession of the secured asset was fixed for 29.04.2025. Therefore, applicants had filed SA No.142/2024 before this Tribunal on 26.04.2024 and in view of the readiness and undertaking of the applicants to pay the entire amount due of Rs.54,53,074/- as mentioned in the notice dated 31.03.2023 under Section 13(2) of the

¶42

¶43

SA/148/2025

¶44

ANITA MARWAHA AND ANOTHER VS. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶45

Act, the above said SA was disposed of vide order dated 26.04.2024 and the applicants were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.13 Lacs in the loan account on the next day i.e., 27.04.2024 and the respondent was restrained from taking physical possession of the secured asset in light of the possession letter dated 04.04.2024 issued by the Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana (West). It was further argued that the applicants were further directed to deposit the rest total outstanding amount in the loan accounts within six months from the date of order. It was further argued that applicants immediately in compliance with the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal deposited an amount of Rs.13 Lacs on 26.04.2024 in Account No.10649678. It was further argued that thereafter the applicants duly deposited the remaining amount on 14.07.2024, 16.09.2024, 08.10.2024, 16.09.2024, 17.07.2024 and 08.10.2024 in due compliance with the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. It was further argued that the full amount of Rs.54,53,074/- as mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 31.05.2023 has already been repaid by the applicants but the respondent inspite of repeated requests has refused to issue “No Due Certificate” and has also declined to return the other loan documents including the registered sale deed of the secured asset. (7) Perusal of record shows that copy of order dated 26.04.2024 passed in SA No.142/2024 passed by this Tribunal is annexed as Annexure A10 to the SA. (8) Relevant portion of the above said order is as under:

¶46

“Learned counsel for applicants further prayed that applicants wants to deposit Rs.13 Lacs today itself and rest outstanding amount within six months from today.

¶47

In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, prime object of the respondent No.1 is to recover the loan amount.

¶48

In light of above, if applicants deposits Rs.13 Lacs in their loan account by tomorrow, respondents are restrained to take physical possession of the secured asset in light of possession notice dated

¶49

9 SA/148/2025

¶50

ANITA MARWAHA AND ANOTHER VS. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶51

04.04.2024 issued by Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana (West).

¶52

Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that applicants are ready to deposit rest total outstanding amount (after deposit of Rs.13 Lacs) in their loan accounts within six months from today. They are directed to deposit the same as per understanding before this Tribunal.

---------------

--------------

---------------

It is made clear that if applicants will not deposit Rs.13 Lacs in their loan account by tomorrow, respondents are free to take possession of the secured asset on the date fixed.

¶57

It is further made clear that if applicants will not deposits rest outstanding amount in their loan account within six months from today then respondents are free to proceed further under the SARFAESI Act from the stage as on today.”

¶58

(9) After perusal of above said order passed in SA No.142/2024, it reveals that after considering the arguments of learned counsel for applicants as well as considering the willingness of applicants, the above said order was passed on 26.04.2024. It further reveals that on 26.04.2024, applicants were directed to deposit Rs.13 Lacs by 27.04.2024 and the said amount was deposited by applicants as stated by learned counsel for applicants. It further reveals that on 26.04.2024, applicants were further directed to deposit rest outstanding amount within six months from that date. (10) Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate submitted that applicants were deposited full amount of Rs.54,53,074/- as mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 31.05.2023 as per order passed by this Tribunal.

¶59

(11) It reveals from the order dated 26.04.2024 that nowhere it was mentioned/directed to applicants to deposit the amount as per notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. It was duly mentioned in the order sheet that the rest outstanding amount be deposited within six months.

¶60

10 SA/148/2025 ANITA MARWAHA AND ANOTHER VS. TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶61

(12) Admittedly, the said amount was not deposited by applicants. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that applicants had complied with the order passed by this Tribunal.

¶62

(13) It appears that applicants have failed to comply with the orders passed by this Tribunal. Orders of Hon’ble Superior Courts must be complied with in letter and spirit at the earliest, even if no time limit was provided in the order. Therefore, applicants are not entitled to get any relief.

¶63

(14) After considering all the facts and circumstances as well as evidence on record, no case is made out in favour of applicants and this SA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, SA is dismissed. Record be consigned to record room after due compliance. Date: 22.07.2025 Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal.

¶64

(MRIDULESHKUMARSINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Anita Marwaha and Another v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Marwaha and Another v. Tata Capital Housing 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

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Vir Singh Since Deceased through Lrs

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Anil Kumar Khatana and Another

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Gurbachan Singh and Another

Canara Bank versus Sh. Deepak Kumar and Another

Jagdeep Singh and Another versus Tata Capital Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Budh Singh