Allowed

N Thulasi v. Iifl Home Loan

DRT4 Mar 2025SA/557/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a Securitization Application challenging a Possession Notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court set aside the notice due to the secured creditor's non-appearance and failure to file counter-arguments, despite statutory time limits for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application is allowed. The Possession Notice dated 21.07.2023 is set aside. Respondent is at liberty to proceed further if the default continues.

N Thulasi versus Iifl Home Loan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.557/2023

04.03.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 04^th day of March, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 557 of 2024

¶8

Mr.N.Thulasi, S/o. Narayanan, No.201, North Street, Neikuppi Village, Thirukazhukundram, Kancheepuram-603102. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, IIFL HOME LOAN, Plot No.98, Udyog Vihar Phase – IV, Gurgaon-122016 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicants : M/s J. Prince

¶13

ORDER ON SA No. 557 OF 2023

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 08.09.2023 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and 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].

¶15

Applicant is the borrower, who has filed the present SA, challenging the Possession Notice dated 21.07.2023 issued by respondent financial institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,14,487/-

¶16

This case moved before this Tribunal on 31.10.2023. Despite filing urgent petition

¶17

and stay petition, as applicant did not choose to file any memo to prove their bonafides,

SA No.557/2023

04.03.2025

IAs 1596 of 23, 1597 of 23 were dismissed with cost of Rs.500/- each to library fund of DRT and DRAT Bar Association. Notice was issued to responded bank returnable by 08.12.2023.

¶22

Applicant had taken notice in the SA as directed by the Tribunal and has also filed AOS which reflects that the notice was served on 06.12.2023. Case was posted on 18.03.2024 for appearance of responded financial institution.

¶23

The proceedings reflects that case was posted from 31.10.2023 to 08.12.2023, 19.02.2024, 18.03.2024, 30.04.2024, 03.06.2024, 15.07.2024, 09.09.2024, 06.11.2024, 27.12.2024 and to today. However it is seen that there is neither vakalath nor counter filed by responded financial institution inspite of opportunities given on the aforesaid dates.

¶24

Heard counsel for applicant and peruse the records.

¶25

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the Possession Notice dated 21.07.2023. On hearing the applicant, Tribunal ordered notice to the respondent financial institution returnable by 08.12.2023 and the matter is thus posted today for appearance of respondent financial institution and for filing counter. It is seen from records that the notice has been served on 06.12.2023 as per the postal track report.

¶26

Today, there is no representation for responded financial institution in the 1^st and 2^nd round of call work. Neither vakalath nor counter has been filed by respondent financial institution.

¶27

The Respondent financial institution, being the secured creditor is bound to assist the Tribunal in adjudicating the matter with regard to the measures initiated by the Bank

SA No.557/2023

04.03.2025

under the Act. It is seen from the records that the respondent, being a secured creditor was served with a notice of the SA on 06.12.2023 and inspite of receipt of the notice, there is no representation for the respondent bank nor they have filed any vakalat or objections countering all the contentions raised by the applicant in the SA.

¶32

The Tribunal under Section 17(1) is to adjudicate the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act and the Tribunal under S 17[5] the ACT is duty bound to dispose of the SA as expeditiously as possible within 60 days from the date of the application and total period of pendency of the application shall not exceed 04 months from the date of the application.

¶33

As the respondent financial institution has not come forward to counter all the allegations / averment in respect of the measures taken by the respondent bank under the Act, the present SA is only to be allowed.

¶34

Accordingly, SA stands allowed. Possession Notice dated 21.07.2023 is hereby set aside. However, respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶35

Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated. Pending IA/s if any are disposed of in terms of this Order. No order as to cost.

¶36

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA)

¶37

PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶38

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 04^th day of March, 2025)

N Thulasi v. Iifl Home Loan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Thulasi v. Iifl Home Loan

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

United Bank of India versus Siva Sakthi Rice Industries

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Sri Aasila Paper Boards

Bank of Maharashtra versus D T Enterprises

Mr a Ramalingam versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus Vasu

Mr Sankar Chinna versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited