Dismissed

Harish Sachdeva v. Sammaan Capital Limited

DRT8 Sept 2025SA/626/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application under Section 47(1) of the SARFAESI Act seeking quashing of Section 13 and 14 proceedings. The court found no merit in the claim that irregularities occurred in the possession order or the recovery certificate issuance.

What did the court decide?

The securitization application was dismissed being devoid of merits; all other pending issues were disposed of.

Harish Sachdeva versus Sammaan Capital Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

1 S.A. No.626 of No.626 of 2025 IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRbBUNAd, LUCKNOW

¶2

S.A. No.626 of No.626 of 2025

¶3

Present: Pravas Kumar Sindh, PrQsiding OffIcer

¶4

Securitization Application No.64H bf 2021

¶5

Dated: 08.9.2b25 F It } II Harish Sachdeva & Anr. I lpblicants I Versus Samrflaan Capital Ltd. I ...... Re+pondents F#

¶6

Ld. Cbunsel for the applicant : Mr. RJana #duI Singh, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for the FI : Mr. Suneet Rumar$harma, Advocate. I !i JUDGMEAT

¶7

1.IThe present securitization Adplica#Hd has ,b ben filed by the applicant on 17.6.2025 bndedJskction 47(1). of the Securitization and Reconstru+ion d{FJ+inancja{rAssets and Enforcement of Security In+erestIIHct, 26d2 (in short SARFAESI Act) for quashing [ecov gg proc4ebing initiated by the respondent-FI anh D4Hbnd Nbtice dated 18.9.2023, Possession Notic8 dated 30.5.2k)]4 and order of the Act dated 08.5.2025 passed unde[ 2.1 Brief facts of the case: Thb of applicant no.1 and also IS guarantor the credit Admittedly, the respondent+FI grantel Ind Rs.49.89 facility as home loan to a tube of le los.1 & 2 as lac against the secured ass4ts fo+ detailed in the SA. The (d r e !S W. granted and loan was disbursed on 02.6 statl lat applicant

¶8

2 I s.AINb.626 of 2025

¶9

El ould not maintain financial >CI a t lost their daughter in medical negligenl in th Ieantime, otices under Section 13(2) & l3(4 e upon the pplicants. The order under ;tiol bf was also qbtained by the respondent-FI

¶10

3 he main grievance of the appjicant IH rig even after t h h

¶11

declaration of account as NHA -esporlq Int-FI has deceived some amount in the ;coun

¶12

li detailed counter affidavit ha bee B by the ndent-FI. It is admitted {hat 3es U ed Ir Section lnts. It is

¶13

l: : & 13(4) were received apFlil ubmitted that applicants an befaul Ie} and was aving no intention to repay t4e Int. It }sjspecifically tated that loan account has bden d lred IPA as per

¶14

directive of RBI and mere dedosi a ;ome bhount does ot make the account regular gs thel I;;“F+„~'„“'

¶15

&eclaration of account as dPA C then is another brocedure to make account regula

¶16

t is pointed out that propertyw ai ly reghs+pred under a been Enexed as

¶17

affidavit. It is ;pecifically

¶18

ISSIO df the $plicant, the ervl () f (•j lnd notice

¶19

SU CII k,.56l5b.335.16 ,, Interegt

¶20

I i c a b 1 +

¶21

'en shown as Annexure No to the count II:==.==:

¶22

,tated that any representatibn q not fik9d by the pplicant and the demand bti led 1b.{.2023 was uly served upon the applil lnt lion notice A pos

¶23

ated 30.5.2024 was also sei a the a }plicant, the

.626 of 2025

ame was affixed on the conspjcuouHWa 0 property SO F [ F t V ewhich has

¶28

nd published in two newspal

¶29

been shown as Annexure No to t el Junter idavit ince, notices under Section 1 d(2) & (4) an dmitted by he re brIde the only

¶30

the applicants and proved by o be ahswered is

¶31

&uestion raised by the applicbnt il li

¶32

'garding declaration of accounF ai he respondent-FI submitted sjatel aceaunt filed by applicants themselves, it +ould B] !ar thbt cheques S bounced

¶33

ich were submiHed by the bppli( into new

¶34

back, for which, the respondedt-FI thrugtl phere of litigation. My attentidn hi len dFabn towards ,everal entries in the loan accbun' ; I) whic has been bounced

¶35

hown that cheque submitted lby th lpplil

¶36

back. Another plea of the applicants being tha+ even after eclaration of account as N+A, interegtl and other amodn+ credited in

¶37

,harges remains running and qny he loan account is placed^Inthe parate a ,ount. It is rgued that it does made^{accOunt n} IIar. A lr as order rIder Section 14 of the Act i4 con. led that Ld DM had directed the Naib Tehsildd Ind th ;pondent I has been directed to take possbssion o secured

¶38

bssets with the help of Nain Tf Id nd the py of the brder has been forwarded td Al Hi [+r pr4v{ding police 0 rce

¶39

the order

¶40

1. 1 find that any irregularity has hot bI ssed under Section 14 of tha Ac

¶41

9 In view of the above discussidn, 1 db not find lny merit in ,se, accordingly, the present Seoul :atio >plication is

¶42

S.AINb.626 of 2025

¶43

dismissed being devoid of mer k. All A othed pknding IAs are also disposed of

¶44

t the file be consigned to recoFd ro9

¶45

Diclaled Singh) esidl }fficer Debts Tribdnbt Lucknow

¶46

lud gment signed, sealed, dat4d d prono led in the 3urt on this 08 open th day of Septem&er, 2H

¶47

rl lar Singh) cer F'esidi’a lg S Debts :eco Trib n I Lucknow

¶48

(Vee re

Harish Sachdeva v. Sammaan Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Sachdeva v. Sammaan Capital 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

M S New Hindustan Scrap Trader versus Central Bank of India

Madan Gopal versus Union Bank of India

M S N S Textiles versus Indian Overseas Bank

Canara Bank versus Mr Arun Prakash Singh

Lakhan Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Mohit versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited