In a securitization application before a DRT, the applicant challenged limitation regarding District Magistrate proceedings and discrepancies in interest rates and mortgage documents. The Presiding Officer found no merit in the arguments and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 74
Case No. SA/401/2023
NARENDRA KUMAR GAWARIYA AND ORS Vs SRG HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED
Date: 13.05.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Amrit Prasad Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant
Ms. Praneeta Agarwal, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, counsel for the respondent bank submits that order dated 16.09.2020 has been challenged on 08.06.2023 and according to the District Magistrate’s order itself, District Magistrate has issued notice and they have failed to appear.
The proceeding before the District Magistrate are ministerial in nature and DM/CMM/CJM are not required to issue any notice, they have to only scrutinize the application and pass an order. Therefore, the Tribunal has not got any concurrent proof that they were aware of the proceeding, so, Securitization Application is within the limitation.
There are two issues raised by the applicant:-
The availment of loan and also repayment of certain installments are admitted by the applicant. Further, applicant submits that the Patta of which the bank mortgaged is non-transferable Patta and it is non-transferable that time also when the loan was taken.
According to the applicant, they were already had availed a loan at the rate of 16% from another financial institution against the same Patta so, it is the duty of the applicant to tell about the nontransferability of the Patta, but counsel for the applicant submits that it was the duty of the bank to deal with it.
In these circumstances, I do not fine any merit in this Securitization Application, therefore, the same stands dismissed.
Court of the Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the securitization application is barred by limitation due to pending proceedings before the District Magistrate.
Whether the bank's representation of an 8% interest rate versus the 24% in the sanction letter constitutes a valid ground to dismiss the securitization application.
Narendra Kumar Gawariya and Ors
SRG Housing Finance Limited
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
