Dismissed

Hardeep Singh v. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

DRT4 Mar 2025SA/265/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by Hardeep Singh as infructuous after the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the Maintenance Tribunal's order declaring the transfer deed null and void.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hardeep Singh versus Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No.265 of 2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA No. 265 of 2024

¶4

Hardeep Singh (since deceased) (now represented by his LRs)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services and others

¶7

Dated: 04.03.2025

¶8

Item No. 21

¶9

Argued by: Sh.I.P. Singh, Counsel for the Applicant. Sh.Anand Chibber, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sh.Raghav Agnihotri, Counsel for Respondent No.1/Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services. None for Respondent No.2.

¶10

Sh.Vivek Verma, Counsel for Respondent No.3/Bhupinder Singh.

¶11

Hardeep Singh (since deceased) (now represented by his LRs) (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services and others (Respondents).

¶12

Admittedly, Applicant/Hardeep Singh is father of respondent No.3/Bhupinder Singh. On 23.02.2016, Applicant transferred the property measuring 414.23 sq. yards i.e. Khana Shumari No. 231/5, Urban Hide Market, Amritsar, fully detailed in para No. 5-D of the application, in favour of Bhupinder Singh. Applicant also executed correction-deed, dated 26.04.2017 in respect of this property. The transfer-deed contained a clause that Applicant is a senior citizen and in case his son/Respondent No.3 fails to maintain him, Applicant would have the right to get transfer-deed declared null and void, under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is admitted on the record that Respondent No.1 had advanced some credit facilities to Respondent No.2. To secure the same, Respondent No. 3 had stood surety and also created security interest in respect of the property, which he had got from his father/Applicant/Hardeep Singh. In February 2021, Applicant filed an application before the Maintenance Tribunal, Amritsar, under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

¶13

¶14

SA No.265 of 2024

¶15

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶16

for setting aside the transfer-deed on the ground that his son/respondent No.3 has neglected to maintain him. Vide ex parte order dated 08.09.2021, Maintenance Tribunal set aside the transfer- deed.

¶17

Sometime in the year 2019, Respondent No. 1 initiated the SARFAESI action and issued the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Respondent No.1 also obtained order from District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act. This led the Applicant to approach this Tribunal for restraining Respondent No.1 from taking the possession of the secured asset on the ground that the transfer-deed on the basis of which the security interest had been created by Respondent No.3 in favour of Respondent No.1 has been set aside.

¶18

Admittedly, Respondent No.1 filed CWP No. 19523-2024 in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court against the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Vide judgment dated 17.02.2025, Hon’ble the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Hon’ble the High Court in para No. 22 of the judgment, dated 17.02.2025 also held that as of now, the property will be treated as ownership of respondent No. 6 and not of respondent No.5 till any fresh order is passed by the Maintenance Tribunal on the application filed by respondent No. 5 under Section 23 of the 2007 Act. Hon’ble the High Court also held that all the options would be available to respondent No.6 to rebut his liability with Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services and the same may be taken before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.

¶19

Mr.I.P. Singh, counsel for the Applicant requests for adjournment. However, I am of the considered view that after the judgment dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 19523-2024, the present SA has been rendered infructuous. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 has set aside the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and has held that as of now Bhupinder Singh would be treated as owner. This SA has been filed by

¶20

¶21

SA No.265 of 2024

¶22

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶23

Hardeep Singh (since deceased) (now represented by his LRs) and not by Bhupinder Singh. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶24

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶25

Pronounced in open court. Manoj/04.03.2025

¶26

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶27

Hardeep Singh v. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hardeep Singh v. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Lakhbir Singh

State Bank of India versus Smt. Gurdeep Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Gurpreet Singh

Ms Arash Shuttering Store versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Chandan Sharma versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Smt Ranjit Kaur