Dismissed

Jude Vincent v. Piramal Capital

DRT25 Sept 2025SA/9/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging the respondent bank's physical possession of mortgaged property. Upholding the NPA classification and service of notices, the court held the application infructuous due to an expired warrant but affirmed the bank's right to invoke Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jude Vincent versus Piramal Capital — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY^TRIBUNAL -^{II AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH^{DAYOF SEPTEMBER, 2025}

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR^{KOTHE, B.Com,L.LB,(Hons.), 14 A} PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Securitization Application^{No.09OF 2025}

¶5

Jude Vincent, S/o^{Late Sri Anthony} 55 years, Occ:Busines,^{R/o H.No.3-39/2/A/1} Bandlaguda Jagir^{Village, Gandipet Mandal} Ranga ReddY District

¶6

Smt.Gyana Kumari, Wo^{lude Vincent} 50^years, Occ:Housewife,^{R/o H No.3-39/2/A/1} Bandlaguda Jagir^{Village, GandipetMandal} Ranga Reddy District

¶7

.......APPlicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

l4/s Piramal Capital^{& HoldingFinanceLimited} Branch Office at^{D.No.1-615, 616 & 617lA} Imperial Towers,4th^{Floor,Units 1, 2 & 8} Ameerpet Maln^{Road, Hyderabad500016} Rep by its Authorized^Officer

¶10

M/s Piramal Capital^{& Holding Finance Limited} O/o 4th rloor,^{PiramalTower,PeninsulaCorporatePark} Ganpatro Kadam^{Marg, LowerParel} Mumbai, MH 400013

¶11

'...ResPondents'

¶12

Counsel for the^{Applicants : M/s MuneerBasshaShaikh}

¶13

Counsel for Respondents^{: Mrs. P.S' Sujatha}

¶14

-:ORDER:.

¶15

The Applicants^{filed the present Securitisation Applicationu/s} 17 of the Securitization^{and Reconstructionof Financlal Assetsand} Enforcement of Security^{Interest Act, 2OO2(hereinafter referredto as} "the Act") to declare the^{actionof respondents land 2 company} ("respondent" hereinafter) in^{issuanceof vacate Jlotici..'Out"O}

Page 2 of5

sA N0.09/2025

10,L2.2024 through advocate commissioner in Cr.Mp No.31712024 on the file of learned II Addl. cJM, Ranga Reddy District aqainst the application schedule property in pursuance of exercise of Rules g and 9, as arbitrary, illegal and void.

¶20

The case of the applicants, briefly, is that the respondent sanctioned a loan of Rs.25.12 lakhs on 22.11.2022 for construction of house against mortgage of application schedule property. Though they paid 14 instalments and due to heart disease of applicant there was default but there was no wilful default. Even after payment of an instalment of Rs.29,484/- on 05.L2.2024, the respondent issued possession notice. The 2nd applicant being joint owner was never served with any notice. Arbitration case is pending. Applicant was not served with demand notice hence proceedings u/r g(1) are void and liable to be set aside. The value of the property is much more than the dues and hence stringent action ought not to have been taken by the respondent. Hence this SA.

¶21

The respondent company filed reply statement along with documents. The submissions, briefly, are that the applicants originally availed loan from Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd which has since been merged with the respondent herein as per NCLT proceedings. Since there was overdue for more than 90 days the loan account of applicants became NpA on 05.05.2024 as per RBI guidelines. sec.13(2) demand notice dated 29.05.2024 was issued and published in'Business Standard, and 'Nava Telangana, English and Telugu newspapers. Due to non payment as per demand, the respondent issues possession notice dated 7g,Og.ZO24, affixed the same on secured asset and published on 24.09,2024 in .South Indi Times' and 'Mana Telangana, English and Telugu newspapers.

,Vf$e.>_b

PaBe 3 of5

sA No.09/2025

Thereafter respondent^{approachedthe learned CJM by filing crl MP} No.3L7 /2024 uls 74 of the^{Act wherein,an advocate commissioner} was appointed and vacate^{notice dated 10.12.2024got to be served'} The statement of account^{showsmultiple cheque bounceentries'The} arbitration^{proceedingspertain to another facility not the subject} home loan. The applicant^{failed to appear in the said ArbitrationCase} and accordingly Arbitration^{Awardwas passed on 25,10.2024 ex} parte. The respondent rlghtly^proceeded u/s^{14 of the Act to take} physical possession of the secured asset^{and thereforeSA is liable to} be dismissed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for^{the applicants and learnedcounsel} for the respondent^{comPany. Perusedthe written arguments filed on} behalf of both^{parties along with the material documents placed on} record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the^{applicantsreiterated his version as in} the application and further^{submittedthat after vacatenotice} applicants^{paidRs.2,06,388/- towards loan instalments and sincethe} respondent company accepted^{the payment, it is deemed that the} account has been^{regularizedand hencethe Crl MP proceedings are} void. Remaining six months^{dues will be paid to the respondent within} a short^period. The^{applicants let out the} Property^{for Rs 65,000/-} which is main source of^{income. Learnedcounselreferred to the} statements of account filed^{along with memo dated 03.09.2025 as} proof of instalment and^prayed to^{allow the SA.}

¶28

Per contra, learned^{counselfor the respondent bank firstly} referred to the documents^{filed along withreply statement as proof of} com plia nce of due procedure. She^{further submitted that the} '$$'s

¶29

Page 4of5

¶30

SA No.09/2025

¶31

applicants have never approached either for regularization or for settlement. They have not complied the conditional order passed by the Tribunal. The Warrant had already expired and hence SA became infructuous.

¶32

The points for consideration are as follows : -

¶33

i) Whether the applicant made out any valid ground to quash the action of the respondent company for taking physical possession of the SA schedule property, as prayed for?

¶34

ii) To what relief?

¶35

Point No.(i):

¶36

Admittedly, even after payment of some old instalments after issuance of vacate notice there are six more instalments overdue by the applicants and in spite of earning Rs.65,000/- in the form of rent, applicants failed to adhere to the payment schedule of loan. Once account is declared as NPA as per norms stipulated by the RBI, the powers are vested with the secured creditor to declare the account as standard by following the directives prescribed for doing so. The classification of account as NPA is not found to be illegal.

¶37

The 2nd applicant is none other than wife of the 1st applicant. As per documents filed by the respondent company along with reply statement, the demand notice was served on 1st applicant besides publication in English and Telugu newspapers. The possession notice was sent by registered post, received by a person on behalf of 1st applicant. The possession notice was affixed on secured asset and published in English and Telugu newspapers. I find no deviation in the procedure followed by tne responaentrVfufi*P

¶38

Page 5 of 5

¶39

SA No.09/2025

¶40

As informed by the^{respondent company,the Warrant stood} expired. Hence the SA is^{infructuous as far as physicalpossessionis} concerned, However, as^{per Sec.14 of the Act, 2002 the respondent} being secured creditor^{is entitled to take action for taking physical} possession of the secured asset.

¶41

It is concluded that the^{applicantfailed to make out any valid} ground to set aside any of the measures of the^{respondentincluding} the action to take^{physical possessionof the SA schedule property'} Accordingly SA is liable to^{be dismissed.}

¶42

Point No.(ii):

¶43

L2. In the result, the^{Securitization Applicationfails and is hereby} dismissed.

¶44