Allowed

Messrs Lord Buddhas Society v. Caparo Financial Solution Ltd.

DRT10 Jun 2025SA/72/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal quashed a Securitization Application filed by Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd. because the debtor had assigned its loan account to a third party before seizing possession. Since the assignor lacked authority post-assignment, the Tribunal held the possession action illegal and unlawful.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was allowed. The respondent was directed to restore possession of the building to the applicant within three days or pay damages of Rs. 1 Lac per day.

Messrs Lord Buddhas Society versus Caparo Financial Solution… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

PRESIDED OVER: SH. MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.72/2025

¶4

Date of Institution: 10.03.2025 Date of Decision: 10.06.2025

¶5

M/s Lord Budha/s Society, Registered Office: #109, Namdhari Chambers, 9/54, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 through its President, Mr. Vinod Bansal, R/o House No.1007, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi 110009

¶6

--Applicant Versus

¶7

Caparo Financial Solutions Ltd., Registered Office: Flat 501, 502, 503 on 5^th Floor, New Delhi House, 27 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 through its Authorised Officer

¶8

--Respondent

¶9

Argued by: Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate for Applicant Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for Respondent

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

(1) This Securitization Application was filed under Section 17 (1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) to set aside the classification of NPA as wrong, notices under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act as well as notice dated 05.02.2025 by virtue of which physical possession of the property in question has been taken and declare that respondent is not entitled to take any action under the provisions of the Act.

¶12

(2) It was stated in the application that applicant society had purchased a chunk of land for the purpose of establishing a school measuring 8.06 Acres situated at Village Jhande, Habdast No. 293, Tehsil and District Ludhiana by way of 12 Registered Sale Deeds executed by the land owners in favour of applicant society; that applicant society constructed three storey building covering 6300 sq. yards for establishing a School on the said land and also constructed swimming pool, play ground and laboratory and boundary wall etc. and established a School with complete infrastructure in the

¶13

¶14

SA/72/2025

¶15

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶16

name of Don Bosco Global School; that relationship of the applicant society with the respondent company started on 11.04.2013 when a loan of Rs.4.25 Crores was sanctioned and disbursed by the respondent to the applicant against the security of aforesaid land and building of Don Bosco Global School, which was liquidated on 31.03.2014; that thereafter, Credit Facility in the shape of Term Loan of Rs. 02 Crores was sanctioned vide sanction letter dated 07.02.2014 by the respondent to the applicant on the condition that the said facility will be disbursed to the borrower only on satisfactory completion of all the formalities of documentation, including that creation/extension of pledge and also arrange to fulfill the pre-disbursal conditions/stipulations as mentioned in Annexure-A to Annexure-D with the sanction letter; that Term Loan Agreement dated 10.02.2014 was entered between the respondent and the applicant as well as other coborrowers and guarantors; that as per sanction letter a Term Loan of Rs.02 Crores was sanctioned for upgradation of School located at Ludhiana, Punjab for maximum period of 24 months (with put/call option after 6^th , 12^th and 18^th months from the date of disbursement); that in terms of Term Loan Agreement dated 10.02.2014, respondent disbursed an amount of Rs.01 Crore in installments on different dates i.e., 13.02.2014 and 21.02.2014 as per the terms of sanction letter dated 07.02.2014; that as per terms and conditions of sanction letter dated 07.02.2014 it was settled that the remaining Term Loan amount of Rs.01 Crore will be disbursed by the respondent after the signing of Agreement between M/s People Combine Educational Initiative Limited and M/s Lord Budha’s Society; that alleging default on the part of the applicant that the Society did not performed its part of the Agreement (Contract) and did not enter in to any Agreement and accordingly, did not disburse the balance sanctioned amount of Rs.01 Crores; that since Rs. 01 Crore was disbursed out of sanction loan of Rs.02 Crore, hence respondent was under an obligation to provide revised repayment schedule for the repayment of the disbursed amount of Rs.01 Crore (Annexure A8) provided to the applicant; that applicant

¶17

¶18

SA/72/2025

¶19

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶20

has been repaying the Term Loan but due to nondisbursement of entire sanctioned amount of Rs.02 Crores, respondent faced paucity of funds as well as due to miscalculation of accrued interest and capitalization of penal interest at a very exorbitant rate, applicant could not deposited the installments at due time; that applicant had deposited sum of Rs.80,713/on 12.03.2014, Rs.1,60,520/- on 16.05.2014, Rs.20 Lacs on 22.07.2014 and Rs.05 Lacs on 05.12.2014; that consequently the outstanding amount as on 31.12.2014 in the Term Loan Account of the applicant was Rs.88,37,147/-, which included interest charged upto 31.12.2014 and account of applicant was regular and standard as on 31.12.2014; that applicant made a request to the respondent vide letter dated 06.05.2015 to issue foreclosure letter for the said loan of Rs.01 Crore and in response Sh. Amol Sumrani, Deputy Vice President of the respondent intimated the President of the applicant that total outstanding amount as on 30.04.2015 was Rs.1,02,27,531/- and daily interest from 01.05.2015 onwards was Rs.4,469/- per day; that after liquidation of earlier loan of Rs.4.25 Crores on 31.03.2014, Title Deeds of 12 Properties was deposited by the applicant for security of said loan of Rs.4.25 Crores stood automatically discharged and respondent had released 03 Title Deeds at the request of the applicant but Title Deeds of 09 Properties remained in the custody of respondent; that no equitable mortgage was created on the said Title Deeds for the security of the new loan of Rs.01 Crore, which was disbursed to the applicant by respondent on 07.02.2014; that therefore, applicant had a right to alienate the said property by way of lease assignment or sale and accordingly, applicant alienated by ways of sale almost the entire properties by way of 07 Sale Deeds in favour of different persons; that 03 Sale Deeds were executed in favour of Smt. Harminder Kaur and she further leased out the said property to Gunsagar Educational Welfare Society, who is running a private ITI in the name of Gunsagar (P) ITI in the 03 storeyed building in which earlier Don Bosco Global School was functioning, which was closed down way back in the year 2015 when the properties were sold in favour of Smt.

¶21

¶22

SA/72/2025

¶23

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶24

Harminder Kaur; that during the last 10 years there has not been any communication between the applicant and respondent, however the President of the applicant received an email dated 29.01.2025 from an Official of the respondent namely Mr. Kshitij Gupta, who informed that the respondent had already assigned the debt of Lord Budha Society (applicant) to CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to an Assignment Agreement executed between CFSL and CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., dated 23.12.2024; that further applicant was intimated that from 23.12.2024, CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., shall be the rightful assignee and shall have all rights, title, interest and benefits, in the loan account of the applicant; that accordingly, all future communications, repayments and queries related to the loan account of applicant would be directed to CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.,; that their contact numbers have also been provided to the applicant; that further it is urged to extend cooperation to CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., and direct all future payments and correspondence to them; that on 30.01.2025 the President of the applicant visited the Office of the respondent for settlement of the dues and he was intimated by the respondent that Company has already filed a Civil Suit No. CS 1869 of 2024 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ludhiana for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the Sale Deeds and Mutation in respect of the properties mortgaged with respondent for declaring that the sale of the mortgaged properties by applicant in the name of different persons was illegal, null and void and transaction are not binding upon the rights of the Company and for restraining the subsequent purchaser from creating any charge over the said properties; that President of the applicant immediately searched the status of the case through e-courts and found that applicant as well as other defendant Nos. 1 to 9 & 13 (in Civil Suit) have been directed to be summoned through publication for appearance on 16.04.2025, therefore President of applicant has engaged the counsel for appearance on 16.04.2025, who has obtained paper book of the said Civil Suit alongwith all Annexures; that close reading of the plaint

¶25

¶26

SA/72/2025

¶27

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶28

of the Suit reveals that the respondent had referred the matter to the Arbitration and the sole Arbitrator Mr. Gaurav Gupta, 128, Western Wing, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi was pleased to pass an award dated 04.01.2019 for the recovery of total amount of Rs.1,86,27,269/with a future interest @24% per annum till the date of realization and Rs.50,000/- towards total Arbitration Fees and costs incurred by the respondent; that applicant is in the process of filing proper application before Competent Court of Law for setting aside of said ex parte Award dated 01.04.2019; that close perusal of the Award would reveal that the learned sole Arbitrator has observed that the respondent is a Non-Banking Finance Company under the provisions of Company Act, 1956 and has been granted Registration under the Provision of Section 451 A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; that it was further observed that the applicant failed to adhere to the fiscal discipline and defaulted in repayment of the amount financed and misappropriated the loan amount in contravention of agreed Term Loan Agreement; that accordingly, Recall Notice dated 11.04.2016 was sent by the respondent to the applicant and its co-borrowers and guarantors etc. recalling upon them to make payment of Rs.1,12,46,862/- within a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of the notice; that applicant had duly replied the said notice vide letter dated 21.04.2016 wherein respondent vaguely tried to avoid their liability on false and frivolous pretext; that the said reply dated 21.04.2016 was duly responded by the respondent vide rejoinder dated 27.05.2016 in which it was stated that since the applicant have not joined the arbitration proceedings and have not filed any reply to the statement of claim, so the claim remained uncontested and the case of claimant/respondent has totally gone un-rebutted; that learned Arbitrator passed the Award dated 04.01.2019 holding the applicant jointly and severally liable to pay sum of Rs.1,12,46,862/alongwith interest of Rs.73,80,407/- calculated @24% p.a. w.e.f. 11.04.2016 till the date of Award dated 04.01.2019; that it is not single whisper about the classification of account as NPA however, in para 12 of the plaint it was mentioned that after passing of the

¶29

6 SA/72/2025

¶30

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶31

Award by the sole Arbitrator on 04.01.2019, the Company started proceedings for the recovery of the said awarded amount and for attachment and auction for the property of the borrower and guarantors including by way of proceeding under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act but respondent has not mentioned as to whether the account of applicant was ever classified as NPA; that neither the date of NPA mentioned nor dates of notices issued under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act had been mentioned; that therefore, respondent has no legal right to proceed under the provisions of Act; that applicant was stunned and surprised to know from the General Secretary of M/s Gunsagar Educational Welfare Society, which exists adjacent to the land of applicant that the respondent has pasted possession notice dated 05.02.2025 stating therein that the Authorised Officer of the respondent has taken the possession of the School land (approximately 5.18 Acres) and building of Don Bosco Global School owned by M/s Lord Budha Society on 15.04.2022 but sealed the Institute of M/s Gunsagar Educational Welfare Society illegally and forcibly; that therefore, M/s Gunsagar Educational Welfare Society has filed SA No. 68/2025 before this Tribunal; that perusal of the notice dated 05.02.2025 reveals that the respondent under the Act had issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 10.07.2020 to M/s Lord Budha’s Society, Mr. Vinod Bansal, Mr. Yash Bansal, Ms. Preeti Bansal, Ms. Kusum Bansal, Mr. Prem Bansal, Mr. Lalit Bansal, Mr. Ankit Bansal, and M/s Juhi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (collectively referred to as borrower) in respect of financial assistance availed by the borrowers, thereby calling upon the borrowers to pay the amount mentioned in the notice i.e., Rs.1,92,50,677/- with interest @21% p.a. and other charges etc. therein within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice but applicant has never received the alleged notice dated 10.07.2020 purported to has been issued by the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Act and also alleged further notice purported to had been issued under Section 13(4) of the Act; that as such applicant is not aware the date of classification of the loan account as NPA; that however,

¶32

7 SA/72/2025

¶33

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶34

applicant received a recall notice dated 11.04.2016 whereby demand of Rs.1,12,46,862/- within a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of notice was made; that hence the amount mentioned in the alleged notice dated 05.02.2025 is grossly wrong and inflated and not recoverable. It was prayed that entire action of the respondent taken under the provisions of the Act is liable to be quashed.

¶35

(3) Reply filed by respondent.

¶36

(4) It is stated in the reply that applicant M/s Lord Budha Society had availed loan from State Bank of India, which was under default and One Time Settlement was agreed between the parties before Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana; that Hon’ble High Court vide Civil Writ Petition No.4348/2012 vide its order dated 02.04.2013 directed SBI to produce all the Title Deeds in the Court on receipt of demand drafts; that in respect of the same, respondent sanctioned a loan in the year 2013 vide sanction letter No. CFSL/2013-14/003 (Annexure A2) to M/s Lord Budha Society (applicant) towards payment of the settlement amount with SBI; that as per sanction letter a Term Loan of Rs.4,10,00,000/- had been sanctioned to the applicant for clearing off the overdues with State Bank of India; that on the receipt of demand drafts, the Title Deeds of all the properties including for the School land and building of Don Bosco Global School situated at Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab were handed over to the respondent; that thereafter, Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of the CWP No.4348/2012 vide its order dated 12.04.2013 in view of the payment of the settlement amount; that loan sanctioned by the respondent was secured by mortgage by deposit of Title Deeds of property being School land and building of Don Bosco Global School, situated at Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab; that loan was paid off by the applicant in the year 2014 and new loan i.e., Term Loan of Rs.02 Crores was sanctioned in the year 2014 vide sanction letter No. CFSL/2013-2014/16; that to secure the new loan, applicant continued with the mortgage of properties already with the respondent i.e., School and Building of Don Bosco Global School situated at Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab; that new

¶37

¶38

SA/72/2025

¶39

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶40

loan sanctioned to the applicant went into default and proceedings under the Act were initiated; that property papers cannot be discharged, transferred or released until the entire outstanding liabilities were paid by the applicant; that since the entire outstanding amount was not paid, the applicant could not alienate the same to any person without obtaining consent of the respondent; that respondent had also created a lien over the property mentioned above; that default, mortgage and the deposit of Title Deeds still subsists in the favour of the respondent; that the property is duly registered with CERSAI by the respondent for securing the loan advanced to the applicant; that the said loan account of the applicant for securing the loan facility of Rs.2 Crores had classified as NPA on 31.03.2016 and thereafter, notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 10.07.2020 and thereafter, possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 15.04.2022; that SA has been filed by the applicant only to scuttle the recovery rights of the respondent being a secured creditor as per the Act; that the malafide intention of the applicant is writ large evident from the sole fact that the applicant borrower, apparently and fraudulently without disclosing prior mortgage by deposit of original Title Deeds and outstanding debt, allegedly sold the mortgaged property to one Smt. Harminder Kaur with the intention to defraud the respondent and further created hindrance by creating alleged tenancy in favour of one M/s Gunsagar Educational Welfare Society, who in collusion with the applicant have caused great harm to the respondent, severely impacting its ability to recover its rightful dues and in turn has preferred to file SA No.68/2025 only to delay the recovery; that all this shows collusion amongst the parties to frustrate the recovery process; that further the Sale Deeds executed illegally and arbitrarily in favour of Smt. Harminder Kaur of which she alleges to be the true owner of the property in question has been cancelled by order dated 19.05.2023 by Hon’ble SDM (West); that therefore, Smt. Harminder Kaur was neither the owner of the said land parcels and despite knowing the same, Smt. Harminder Kaur has no right in the property nor had

¶41

9 SA/72/2025

¶42

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶43

any right to lease the same; that this shows that the entire action of the applicant is collusive with the sole intention to defeat the legal rights of the respondent over the property in question; that the SA is also bad for not making necessary parties; that the loan account in question has already assigned by the respondent in favour of M/s CFM ARC by way of Assignment Deed dated 23.12.2024, which was non-joinder of necessary party and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was prayed that SA filed by applicant is prima facie not maintainable as per the averments of the applicant, therefore the same is required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself.

¶44

(5) Replication by applicant was filed to the reply filed by respondent, wherein the contents of SA were reiterated and that of the reply to the SA were denied. (6) I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. Diwan Sharma and Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocates and gone through the record carefully.

¶45

(7) Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate argued that the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by respondent are time barred. It was further argued that the loan account of applicant was classified as NPA on 30.03.2016. It was further argued that no action has been taken over by respondent over four years and first notice was issued in the year 2020 without any legal basis.

¶46

(8) Per contra , Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate argued that loan account has been rightly classified as NPA and applicant can have no grouse with regard to late declaration. It was further argued that in fact, the classification of NPA has been done in the year 2016 and is also mentioned in the demand notice and no objection to the said date was ever raised by the applicant.

¶47

(9) In the Act, no time limit was provided to issue notice under Section 13(2) of the Act after classification of account as NPA. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate. (10) Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate further argued that notice under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act were never served upon applicant. It was further argued that

¶48

10 SA/72/2025

¶49

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶50

even no dates of the said notices were in the knowledge of applicant.

¶51

(11) Per contra, Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate argued that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 10.07.2020 and notice under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 15.04.2022 were duly served upon applicant as per Rules. Copy of the proof of service was annexed as Annexures R9 & R10 with the reply.

¶52

(12) It reveals from record that only receipts of registered posts were filed in respect of notices under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act, which were issued to applicant and others but no track consignment record filed by respondent to show that the notices in question, which were allegedly sent by respondent were ever received by the applicant. Track consignment record is available w.e.f. January, 2013 and as per reply filed by respondent notices in question were sent in year, 2020 and 2022. Gone are the days when sending of registered post itself used to be enough for drawing the presumption of service against the addressee. There is hardly any scope for the same in view of the availability of the track consignment record. Track consignment record should have been produced to bring home the fact that the notices were duly served upon the applicants and that not being the position, this Tribunal refuses to draw presumption of service.

¶53

(13) In light of above factual matrix, it is established that notices under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act were issued but not proved served upon all concerned in light of the Rules.

¶54

(14) Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate further argued that in the present SA it has to be seen as to whether Caparo Financial Solution Ltd. (respondent) had any power or authority to take possession of the property in question on 05.02.2025 after assignment of the said debt to CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. on 23.12.2024.

¶55

(15) Though Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate submitted that there was no illegality in taking the possession by the Caparo Financial Solution Ltd. on 05.02.2025 but the same was denied by Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate.

¶56

11 SA/72/2025

¶57

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶58

(16) In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, when respondent Caparo Financial Solution Ltd. has assigned the debt involved in the SA to CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. on 23.12.2024 then after 23.12.2024, respondent had no authority to act as secured creditor with regard to the loan. It was also very strange that notice under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 was issued on 05.02.2025 by Caparo Financial Solution Ltd. and physical possession was taken over on 05.02.2025 itself. Firstly on 05.02.2025 Caparo Financial Solution Ltd. had no authority left to issue the possession notice and secondly, it was also not fair on the part of respondent that after issuance of notice dated 05.02.2025 possession was taken on 05.02.2025. (17) Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate argued that applicant has not impleaded CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. as respondent. Therefore, this SA is liable to be dismissed on this score.

¶59

(18) Per contra , Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate argued that no cause of action arose against CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. therefore, the said Company was not impleaded as respondent.

¶60

(19) This Tribunal is in agreement with the reply of Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate. From the perusal of pleadings on record, it appears that CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. has not created any hinderance in the running of Institute of applicant as well as no SARFAESI proceedings were initiated or acted upon by CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, there was no need to implead CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. as respondent in this SA.

¶61

(20) Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate further argued that Sale Deeds executed by applicant illegally and arbitrarily in favour of Smt. Harminder Kaur of which she alleges to be the true owner of the property in question has been cancelled vide order dated 19.05.2023 passed by SDM (West), Ludhiana. (21) Per contra , Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate argued that jurisdiction of cancellation of sale deeds lies only with the Civil Court and not with Revenue Court. Therefore, cancellation of sale deeds by SDM (West), Ludhiana was illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶62

12 SA/72/2025

¶63

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶64

(22) This Tribunal is also of the opinion that only Civil Court has jurisdiction to cancel any sale deed and no other Court has jurisdiction to cancel the sale deeds. Therefore, there is force in the argument of Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate.

¶65

(23) Sh. Diwan Sharma, Advocate further argued that after assignment of debt to CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. on 23.12.2024, respondent CAPARO Financial Solution Ltd., has left no right to proceed the SARFAESI proceedings.

¶66

(24) Per contra , Sh. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate argued that CAPARO Financial Solutions Ltd., may proceed with the SARFAESI proceedings even after the assignment of debt to CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

¶67

(25) In the considered opinion of this Tribunal when after Assignment Deed dated 23.12.2024, CAPARO Financial Solutions Ltd., has assigned the debt to CFM Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., then after 23.12.2024 present respondent had no right to proceed with the SARFAESI proceedings.

¶68

(26) No other point was argued/pressed.

¶69

(27) From the facts and circumstances discussed above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that respondent has taken over the possession of the building in question, which was at the relevant time in the possession of the applicant, illegally and without any authority. Consequently, the said action of the respondent is hereby quashed. In fact, as discussed above respondent was not entitled to take any action under the provisions of the Act after the date of Assignment Deed and present SA is liable to be allowed.

¶70

(28) SA is allowed. Respondent is directed to restore the possession of the building in question to applicant within 03 days. If the possession is not restored within the prescribed time, then respondent is liable to pay Rs. 01 Lac per day as damages to applicant.

¶71

(29) Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Chaudhary, Advocate is appointed as Court Commissioner to ensure the compliance of Court’s order. He was further authorized to visit on spot and handover the physical possession of

¶72

13 SA/72/2025

¶73

M/S LORD BUDHA’S SOCIETY VS. CAPARO FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LTD.

¶74

the building in question on 04^th day of this order, if respondent failed to handover the possession till then. Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Chaudhary, Advocate will receive Rs. 55,000/- from the applicant as fees and transport charges etc. (30) Registrar is directed to provide a copy of this order to Sh. Sukhvinder Singh Chaudhary, Advocate for his information and compliance. (31) Assistant is directed to place copy of this order before Registrar for information and compliance. Record be consigned to record room after due compliance. Date: 10.06.2025. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. (MRIDULESHKUMARSINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Messrs Lord Buddhas Society v. Caparo Financial Solution Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Messrs Lord Buddhas Society v. Caparo Financial Solution Ltd.

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

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Jarnail Singh and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Bahadur Singh

Axis Bank Ltd., versus Sh. Satnam Singh Sidhu

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Bhullar Associates and Construction Co. and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurvel Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Bholenath Industries and Others