Allowed

V Chitra and others v. M S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company

DRT3 Mar 2025SA/272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal set aside a Section 14 order obtained against a deceased borrower. The tribunal directed the respondent to re-credit expenses, initiate fresh Section 13(2) measures by bringing legal heirs on record, and granted liberty to proceed thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Section 14 order set aside; expenses to be re-credited by 12.03.2025; respondent directed to initiate fresh Section 13(2) measures after impleading legal heirs.

V Chitra and others versus M S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

S.A. No.272/2024 (C)

¶2

1 03.03.2025

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 03^rd day of March, 2025

¶5

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 272 of 2024

¶7

Mrs. V. Chitra W/o Late Venkatesan Door No.1/24, Palla Street Ullavur, Kanchipuram – 631 606

¶8

Mr. V. Purushotaman S/o Late Venkatesan Door No.1/24, Palla Street Ullavur, Kanchipuram – 631 606

¶9

3. Ms. V. Meenatchi
D/o Late Venkatesan Minor, represented by her Mother and natural guardian Mrs. V. Chitra
W/o Late Venkatesan
Door No.1/24, Palla Street
Ullavur, Kanchipuram – 631		….Applicants
	-Vs-

¶10

M/s Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Edelweiss House Off CST Road, 1^st Floor, Santa Cruz East Kalina, Mumbai – 400 098 Rep. by its Authorised Officer ….Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J. Arun Prasad Counsel for Respondent : M/s S.K. Mariyappan

¶11

ORDER ON SA No. 272 OF 2024

¶12

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 18.05.2024 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and

¶13

S.A. No.272/2024 (C)

¶14

¶15

03.03.2025

¶16

Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶17

This S.A. is filed challenging the Section14 order dated 21.03.2024 passed by Ld. CJM, Chengalpet, in C.M.P. No.8890 of 2023, pursuant to measures initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,58,648.04p.

¶18

1^st Applicant, is co-borrower, who had availed a Housing Loan along with her Husband Late S. Venkatesan, from the respondent institution. 2^nd and 3^rd Applicants are the legal heirs of Late S. Venkatesan.

¶19

It is the case of applicants that Late S. Venkatesan had approached M/s Elelweiss Housing Finance Limited, and had availed a Housing Loan of Rs.9 lakhs on 14.07.2017 and Top Up Housing Loan of Rs.6 lakhs on 17.07.2017.

¶20

The applicants submit that Section 14 order is filed against the dead person S. Venkatesan. It is also the case of applicant that at the time of granting the loan, Late S. Venkatesan has taken life insurance from M/s Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Limited and had paid life time premium of Rs.37,838/- and Rs.18,848/- respectively for the above said loans and the premium have been debited with from the Housing Loan of Late S. Venkatesan,but the bank has failed to furnish the statement of account till date.

¶21

The borrower, S. Venkatesan, died on 29.10.2018, leaving behind the applicants as LRs and the above fact of death was intimated to M/s Elelweiss Housing Finance Limited and M/s Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Company Limited and they have acknowledged vide their letter dated 03.01.2019, to claim the insurance amount, which

¶22

S.A. No.272/2024 (C)

¶23

¶24

03.03.2025

¶25

has not been credited. Such being the case, the applicants have received a notice from Advocate Commissioner on 08.05.2024, intimating about Section 14 order, which is taken against deceased S. Venkatesan.

¶26

Respondent financial institution, who was on caveat, was put on notice. However, respondent did not file any counter.

¶27

After the arguments were heard, and the matter was reserved for order, the respondent has filed a memo of withdrawal of the Demand Notice dated 19.11.2019 issued against deceased S. Venkatesan and the 1^st applicant, by sending a copy to other side by E-mail around 14.54 hours, which is an after thought and nothing prevented the respondent financial institution to bring this fact before this Tribunal, as the matter is pending from 2024.

¶28

Admittedly and evidently, Section 14 order is obtained against the deceased S. Venkatesan, which is only to be set aside.

¶29

The respondent financial institution is hereby directed to initiate fresh measures from Section 13(2) bringing the legal heirs of Late S. Venkatesan on record. The charges incurred for the entire SARFAESI measures including the legal expenses incurred for contesting the matter is directed not to be charged to the loan account of Late S. Venkatesan, borrower and Mrs. V. Chitra, co-borrower by the respondent financial institution and is directed to re-credit the same on or before 12.03.2025, before proceeding with their SARFAESI measures. On compliance of the direction of this Tribunal, the respondent financial institution will be at liberty to proceed further with their SARFAESI measures in accordance to law.

¶30

S.A. No.272/2024 (C)

¶31

03.03.2025

¶32

¶33

Memo filed by respondent bank is taken on record, giving liberty for respondent to initiate fresh measures from the issuance of Demand Notice under Section 13(2) by bringing LRs of Late S. Venkatesan on record, to give an opportunity to redeem the property.

¶34

Accordingly, SA stands disposed of with the above observations, with liberty to respondent financial institution to initiate fresh measures after bringing the legal heirs on record.

¶35

Interim order granted, if any stands vacated and pending IA’s are disposed of in

¶36

terms of this order. No order as to cost.

¶37

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶38

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 03^rd day of March, 2025)

V Chitra and others v. M S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Chitra and others v. M S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company

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 Gokulakrishnan

Indian Bank versus Mrs Poornima M Reddy And Other

Saminathan versus Bank of Baroda

S Vidyakaran versus Repco Home Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Pallava Buildcon

ms Anandcine Service Private Limited versus Hdfc Bank