Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi v. Asset Reconstrruction Company India Ltd.

DRT7 Oct 2025SA/907/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a securitization application filed under the SARFAESI Act by a third party who was neither the borrower nor mortgagor. The court found that any relief lay with the fraudulent predecessor against whom the applicant pursued action. The application was dismissed as devoid of merit regarding securitization.

What did the court decide?

The present securitization application (SA) is dismissed as it is devoid of any merit.

Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi versus Asset Reconstrruction Company… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

S.A. No.907 of 2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW

¶4

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶5

Securitization Application No.907 of 2022

¶6

Dated: 07.10.2025

¶7

Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi

¶8

. . . . . . . . . ... Applicant

Versus

ARCIL & Ors.

Respondents

Ld. Counsel for applicant: Mr. Suneet K. Sharma, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for ARCIL : Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2: Mr. Mohit Chawla, Advocate.

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The present securitization Application has been filed by the applicant under section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act) who is neither borrower nor mortgager of the secured assets.

¶15

Facts of the case are mostly admitted or proved.

¶16

r bi=

¶17

On 20.9.2005, sale deed was executed by Awas Vikas Parishad in favour of the Atul Awasthi (Respondent No.3) as House No.8B/32 was allotted in favour of respondent no.3 by UP Awas Evam Vikar Parishad.

¶18

4 The said Atul Awasthi executed an agrdement of sale on 24.12.2008 in favour of the applicant. It is stated that before entering into agreement to sell, the applicant had obtained non-encumbrance certificate dated 28.7.2006 issued by Deputy Registrar, Lucknow and similar certificate was issued by UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. It is stated that respondent no.3 had taken loan from Bank of India on 10.7.2010, the said loan account was closed and

S.A.No.907 of 2022

bank had issued no dues certificate in favour of respondent no.3 and his wife. After which, the said Atul Awasthi obtained non encumbrance certificate from Deputy Registrar Lucknow for the period of 1997 to 2009.

¶23

It is stated that on 14.01.2009, the respondent no.3 executed sale deed in favour of the applicant and he had given no objection before UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad on the basis of affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 and other documents, the name of the applicant was ordered to be mutated in the office of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad.

¶24

Further case being that on 27.8.2022, a letter was issued by Awas Vikas Parishad informing the applicant that Mr. Atul Awasthi had taken loan from the City Bank and therefore, mutation proceeding cannot be made. It is stated that after receiving of the said letter, the applicant approached the respondent no.1 and the Awas Vikas Parishad and also provided letter dated 16.8.2022 written by ARC to the applicant. As per the letter, the respondent no.3 had taken loan from City Bank and the loan was subsequently assigned to ARC. It is alleged that securitization proceeding has been initiated by the respondent-ARC without compliance of statutory provisions and the secured asset was put on e-auction on 28.7.2022 and the sale certificate has been issued in favour of the auction purchaser.

¶25

~ t)

¶26

A detail written objection has been filed by the respondentARC stating there in that UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad allotted Plot No.8B/32 to respondent no.3 on 13.01.2004. The borrower Atul Awasthi and his wife approached the City Bank and applied for financial assistance for sum of Rs.15 lac by submitting loan application. Accordingly, loan of Rs.15 lac was sanctioned. The security documents were executed by the respondent no.3 on the basis of NOC issued by UP Awas Vikas Parishad. On the basis of said allotment letter and NOC, a sum of Rs.13.20 lac was disbursed to the borrower to be paid into the credit of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. It is stated that after the loan, the applicant never maintained financial discipline, accordingly, demand notice dated 23.5.2018 was issued for discharge of liability to tune of Rs.44,41,814.74/- as on

¶27

¶28

S.A.No.907 of 2022

¶29

23.5.2018 along with future interest and charges and in proof thereof, Annexure No. R-2 has been shown. It is stated that constructive/symbolic possession notice dated 11.5.2022 was duly affixed at the conspicuous part of the secured assets and it was published in the newspaper and in proof thereof, Annexure No. R-3 has been annexed. It is stated that as no payment was made, ARC issued sale notice dated 22.6.2022 through registered post, it was published in two widely circulated newspaper, the proof of compliances has been brought on record as Annexure No. R-4 & Annexure No. R-5. It is stated that in the auction proceeding, the ARC has received an amount of Rs.1,30,10,147.40/and the sale certificate has been issued after realizing the entire amount. It is stated that vide Annexure No. R-6, ARC informed regarding sale and vide Annexure No. R-7, ARC again informed the Awas Vikas Parishad that Atul Awashti had taken loan from original lender, but instead of submitting Freehold Deed dated 20.9.2005 with the secured creditor, the borrower further sold the property to some third person. Reminder was also issued. It is stated that borrower Atul Awasthi has committed fraud with the original lender as well as with the applicant.

¶30

From plain perusal of the above fact, I find that the respondent no.3 executed sale deed on 14.01.2009 in favour of the applicant. Prior to it, the said respondent no.3 had approached City Bank for financial assistance on the basis of NOC issued by UP Awas Vikas Parishad and allotment letter, thus, the sale deed executed by the respondent no.3 in favour of the applicant was with regard to assets, on the basis of which, the loan was disbursed by the said City bank and the respondent-ARC had entered into shoes of the City bank.

¶31

1 am of the opinion that applicant has been cheated by the respondent no.3 and any relief to the applicant lies with the respondent no.3, who has practiced fraud with the applicant.

¶32

As far as securitization proceeding initiated by the respondent-RC is concerned, any flaw has not been pointed out, since statutory notices under SARFAESI

¶33

¶34

S.A.No.907 of 2022

¶35

Rules were required to be served upon the respondent no.3.

¶36

In view of fact, I am of considered view that applicant may take action against the respondent no.3 regarding fraud practiced with him in accordance with law. In view of admitted position of fact, the present SA being devoid of any merit is dismissed.

¶37

All the other pending IAs are also disposed of.

¶38

Let the file be consigned to record room.

¶39

(Dictated ++A$ (Pravas KumbT-Singh) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow

¶40

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 07th Day of October, 2025.

¶41

j”..$ _ g A}/&*/ (Pravas Kuma?Singh) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Lucknow

¶42

(Veeresh)

Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi v. Asset Reconstrruction Company India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi v. Asset Reconstrruction Company India 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

Akanksha versus State Bank of India

Ms Mahalaxmi Marbles versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Visal Bharat Industries versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Mrs Reeta Agarwal versus Hero Housing Finance Ltd.

Shiv Kumar Gupta versus Axis Bank

S R Tour Travel versus Yes Bank