Dismissed

Kanhaiya Lal Sharma v. Mentor Home Loans India Ltd.

DRT10 Dec 2025SA/414/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, dismissed a Securitization Application under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that the application was time-barred, finding the applicant's delay in filing inordinate despite service of notices.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kanhaiya Lal Sharma versus Mentor Home Loans India Ltd. — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIMAL GUPTA

¶3

SA No.- 414/2023

¶4

Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Sharma s/o Mr. Laxmi Narayan Sharma, resident of - Plot no. 130, Devraj Nagar-IInd, Gram Mandrampura, Tehsil - Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶5

Mrs. Deepika Sharma w/o Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, resident of - Plot no. 130, Devraj Nagar-IInd, Gram - Mandrampura, Tehsil - Sanganer, District Jaipur.

¶6

.........Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mentor Home Loans India Limited , Registered Housing Finance Company, B-9, Mentor House, Govind Marg, Sethi Colony, Jaipur 302004, Rajasthan through its Authorized Representative.

¶9

........Respondent Bank/FI

¶10

Counsels:-

¶11

Shri Mohit Khandelwal, Counsel for the applicant

¶12

Shri Alok Mathur, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶13

(Final Order) (10.12.2025)

¶14

This matter has come upon being remanded back by the Hon’ble DRAT to decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. According to the counsel for the applicant this Securitization Application has been filed on 15.06.2023 on the basis of possession notice affixed on 27.05.2023. It is further contended that notice under

¶15

¶16

Court of the Presiding Officer

¶17

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶18

Section 13(2) was never received by them and track report shows that the said notice was returned to the respondent.

¶19

Counsel for the respondent bank on this point contended that they have sent the notice under Section 13(2) on two addresses though from one address, the said notice returned, but on another address i.e. Plot no. 33, Abadi Tejawala, Kapurawala Balawala Road, K.M.D. Collage, Kapurawala, Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur-302029 it was served as per track report.

¶20

Going through the arguments, the applicant submits that was their old address and new address is updated in the records of the respondent bank and it was from such address, the notice have returned unserved.

¶21

Though, District Magistrate is not required to issue notice, still the notice were issued at the same address which were refused to be taken by the applicants herein. The applicant submits that there was no requirement of notice to be issued nor they are supposed to appear before the District Magistrate. After the notices returned unserved on one address, the bank has published the notice in two newspapers i.e. Business Standard (English Edition) and Morning News (Hindi Edition).

¶22

The grievance raised by the applicant is that Business Standard is New Delhi publication and the Hindi Newspaper i.e. Morning News is of Jhunjhunu publication whereas as per mandate, the notices have to be published in the local newspapers. The respondent bank has countered the same and states that the Hindi Edition Newspaper i.e. Morning News is Jaipur edition seen newspaper and it is Jaipur edition.

¶23

So far as the address which is mentioned and claimed as an old address by the applicant still exists in the Aadhar Card as confirmed by the respondent bank. Thus, it is to be presumed that the said address is also the address of the applicant and the respondent sent the notices on all the address available with them and not changing the address in the Aadhar Card shows that the

¶24

¶25

Court of the Presiding Officer

¶26

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶27

correspondence address of the applicant is still the same i.e. Plot no. 33, Abadi Tejawala, Kapurawala Balawala Road, K.M.D. Collage, Kapurawala, Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur302029 Publication has been carried out for notice under Section 13(2).

¶28

The order passed by District Magistrate on 10.03.2022, therefore, the measures would have been challenged under the limitation of 45 days from the measures taken. The counsel for the applicant contends that the bank has issued notice on 27.05.2023 after affixation was done and the reply was received on 07.06.2023 and thereafter, the Securitization Application was filed on 15.06.2023. Counsel for the applicant further submits that for the first time they became aware of the proceedings under Section 13(2) and 13(4) because of reply sent to them on 07.06.2023. It is pointed out by the counsel for the respondent bank that the said reply is addressed to the applicant at his address i.e. Plot no. 33, Abadi Tejawala, Kapurawala Balawala Road, K.M.D. Collage, Kapurawala, Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur-302029 and also to the Advocate. He further submits that at all point of time notice proceedings or any legal notice or reply thereof was sent to above mentioned addresses.

¶29

The contention of the applicant is that the bank’s record show that his new address i.e. Plot No. 130, Devraj Nagar-2^nd , Madrampura, Diggi Road, Sanganer, Dist. Jaipur as the address for correspondence.

¶30

Be that it may be, even today the alleged old address mentioned in reply under Section 13(3A) is their address only because an authenticate document i.e. Aadhar Card shows the same address and the same address is verified by the respondent bank today itself. Counsel for the respondent bank submits that when they verified this Aadhar Card today, OTP has gone to the applicant and after taking OTS from the applicant they have verified the same.

¶31

10.Refusal of a notice of District Court shows that the person has got the knowledge about the contents of the same and

¶32

¶33

Court of the Presiding Officer

¶34

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶35

it is deemed to have in their knowledge being served. The Tribunal is of the opinion that when the notice which the applicant submits that was affixed as a possession notice on 27.05.2023 and no date is there on the said notice. According to the applicant, they have immediately issued a legal notice, but no proof of its affixation on 27.05.2023 is there.

¶36

11.Refusal of the notice sent on the same address where notice under Section 13(2) with insufficient address returned with shows that Postal Authority have in connivance with the applicant as was returned remarks “insufficient address”, else, how the notice sent by District Magistrate office could have been delivered to refuse and these envelopes of 13(2) notices were return insufficient address.

¶37

12.Without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is no merit in application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is time barred, hence, the same stands dismissed.

¶38

13.Accordingly, this Securitization Application stands dismissed. File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website

¶39

Copy of the order be sent to the Registry of Hon’ble DRAT, New Delhi.

¶40

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶41

Kanhaiya Lal Sharma v. Mentor Home Loans India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kanhaiya Lal Sharma v. Mentor Home Loans India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar versus Cholmandalam Invesment and Finance Company

Agarwal Khad Beej Bhandar versus Protium Finance Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Sher Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Harphool Lomod

Axis Bank versus Shri Chand

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Naresh