Disposed

Subramani Ravi v. India Infoline Housing Finance Limited

DRT13 Mar 2025SA/574/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization Act, 2002, the applicant challenged a Sale Notice issued by the respondent financier. The court observed that the scheduled sale did not take place due to lack of bidders. The court held the challenge to the sale measures barred as it exceeded the 45-day limitation period under Section 17(1). Consequently, the application wa

What did the court decide?

Sale Application No.574 of 2023 disposed of as having rendered infructuous. Interim order vacated. Pending IAs disposed of in terms of this order.

Subramani Ravi versus India Infoline Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 574 of 2023

¶2

13.03.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 13^th day of March 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.574 of 2023

¶9

Subramani Ravi No.3/315, 61^st Street, Muthamizh Nagar Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118 ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer M/s IIFL Home Finance Limited (formerly known as India Infoline Housing Finance Limited) Old No.1, New No.76, Block -1 NU Tech Building – 3^rd Floor, 1^st Main Road CIT Nagar West, Nandaman, Chennai – 600 035 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s R. Sreedhar Counsel for Respondent : M/s V. Balasubramani

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 01.11.2023 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

¶16

under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶17

Applicant is the borrower, who has filed the present SA, challenging

¶18

the Sale Notice dated 06.10.2023 issued by respondent bank, fixing the

¶19

SA No. 574 of 2023

¶20

13.03.2025

¶21

¶22

sale on 10.11.2023, for recovery of a sum of Rs.70,81,980/- due as on 05.10.2023 and the prayer as sought for in the SA is to set aside the sale notice.

¶23

This case was moved on 07.11.2023 by the applicant. IA No.1653/23 – stay petition was allowed subject to condition of applicant remitting Rs4 lakhs on or before 09.11.2023 and another 10% of the amount within four weeks thereafter and notice was ordered to respondent bank returnable by 11.12.2023.

¶24

Applicant had reported compliance of conditional order vide memo filed on 18.03.2024. Respondent financial institution entered appearance and filed their vakalath on 29.02.2024. Counter and typed set of documents filed by respondent on 28.05.2024.

¶25

Today when the case was taken up, both the counsels for applicant and respondent bank submitted that sale did not take place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and hence the present SA has become infructuous, which is also mentioned in para 6 of the counter filed by respondent financial institution. Thus submitting, Ld. counsels prayed for dismissal of SA.

¶26

Heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the records of the case.

¶27

SA No. 574 of 2023

¶28

¶29

13.03.2025

¶30

It is seen that borrowing is not disputed by the applicant. The prayer as sought for in the SA has become infructuous. In respect of challenge to the measures under Section 13(2) and 13(4), the same is not within the period of 45 days as required under section 17(1) of the Act. Hence, nothing survives for adjudication in the present SA.

¶31

Accordingly, SA.No.574 of 2023 stands disposed of as having rendered infructuous. Both the counsels have endorsed in the proceeding sheets admitting the facts.

¶32

Interim order granted if any, stands vacated. Pending IAs if any, are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to costs.

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 13^th day of March, 2025)

Subramani Ravi v. India Infoline Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramani Ravi v. India Infoline Housing Finance Limited

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

Dhananjayan versus Indian Bank

Bkr Hotels versus Union Bank of India

Kayaar Exim versus Hdfc Bank

Rathinavelu and Sundaravadivelu and Kanchanvelu and Mangayarkarasi versus New India Cooperative Bank Limited

V Prabhakaran versus Union Bank of India

Mrs v Geetha versus Indian Bank