Dismissed

Dimple v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance and Others

DRT9 Mar 2026SA/223/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitization application, Smt. Dimple challenged demand and possession notices issued by Piramal Capital under the SARFAESI Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that it was filed beyond the 45-day limitation period stipulated under Section 17 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application filed by the applicant was dismissed as time-barred.

Dimple versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

PRESIDED OVER: SH. MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.223/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 03.10.2023 Date of Decision: 09.03.2026

¶5

Smt. Dimple W/o Sh. Davinder Pal, R/o House No.226, Ward No.1, Kharar-140301, Rupnagar, Punjab

¶6

--Applicant Versus

¶7

Authorised Officer, Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Formally DHFL, 6 & 7 Floor, Raksha Business Centre, Ambala, Chandigarh Highway, Zirakpur, Punjab

¶8

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Formally DHFL, 6 & 7 Floor, Raksha Business Centre, Ambala, Chandigarh Highway, Zirakpur, Punjab through its Chief Manager

¶9

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sector-76, District Court, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab

¶10

Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Kharar

¶11

--Respondents

¶12

Argued by: Sh. Jatinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate for Applicant (through VC) Sh. S.C. Prajapati, Advocate proxy for Sh. Nitin Grover, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 already ex parte vide order dated 29.01.2024

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

(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 demand notice dated 23.08.2021 (Annexure P-4), possession notice dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P-5), physical possession letter dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) (letter issued by Tehsildarcum-Executive Magistrate, Kharar) and any further action taken by respondents under the Act.

¶15

2 SA/223/2023 DIMPLE VS. PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE AND OTHERS

¶16

(2) It was stated in the application that in the year 2015, applicant approached the Financial Institution i.e., DHFL to avail Housing Loan for sum of Rs. 16,40,705/- and upon submission of requisite documents, the said Financial Institution sanctioned the above said loan vide sanction letter dated 06.11.2015 against the mortgage of residential house of applicant i.e., House No. 282, First Floor, Modern Valley Colony, Kharar Mohali; that thereafter, in the year 2018 the aforesaid loan was taken over by respondent Nos. 1 & 2; that applicant was maintaining the account regularly and had very good track record; that applicant was paying the EMIs regularly but due to COVID-19 Pandemic, applicant suffered huge financial set-back and applicant was unable to pay back the amount on time; that the account of the applicant was running within the sanctioned limit and maintaining the account regularly; that however, no notice under the Act in respect of the loan account has been served on the applicant; that on 08.09.2023, applicant found letter dated 21.08.2023 issued by Tehsildar, Kharar affixed on the outer wall of her residential house, informing the applicant, that the physical possession of the residential house of the applicant will be taken on 14.09.2023 at 11:00 AM; that no notice was served upon applicant, prior to 08.09.2023, which clearly shows malafide action on part of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to usurp the valuable property of the applicant; that when the applicant approached the Chief Manager of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to know about the proceedings initiated against the applicant by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 under the Act and the recoverable amount against applicant but the Chief Manager of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 refused to provide any documents to applicant; that no demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act or possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was served upon applicant; that neither any notice from the Office of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali was served upon applicant; that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 asked the applicant to arrange Rs.03 Lakhs immediately to avoid the taking over of physical possession by the Official of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on 14.09.2023 and applicant

¶17

3 SA/223/2023 DIMPLE VS. PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE AND OTHERS

¶18

with great difficulty could arrange from her friends and relatives, an amount of Rs.1.50 Lakhs and deposited the said amount within 15 days and requested the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to withdraw the action as the applicant has deposited the amount but respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have not considered the genuine request and fixed the date of taking over of actual physical possession of the sole residential house of the applicant on 14.09.2023; that thereafter, applicant approached the Office of Chief Judicial Magistrate and submitted application for supply of certified copy of the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 under Section 14 of the Act, along with notices issued by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 under the Act and the said copies were received by applicants; that loan account has been prematurely and arbitrarily classified as NPA, without giving any opportunity to the applicant to clear the temporary irregularity. Therefore, it was prayed that the present SA may kindly be allowed.

¶19

(3) Reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶20

(4) It was stated in the reply that applicant has not came with clean hands before this Tribunal and has concealed the material and vital facts; that applicant has filed the present SA just to delay the proceedings and create hurdle in recovery proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 against applicant; that the present SA is barred by limitation as the same has to be filed within 45 days from the date of any action initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 13.07.2022 and the order passed by District Magistrate on 15.05.2023 but the present SA was filed after the expiry of 45 days i.e., on 16.09.2023 therefore, the SA is liable to be dismissed being time barred; that applicant had deliberately committed defaults in repayments of the loan; that name of the DHFL Company has been changed to Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited (PCHFL) on 03.11.2021 in the records of the Registrar of Companies (Annexure R-2), therefore it is wrong to say that the account of the applicant was taken over by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in the year 2018; that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 had also granted Covid-19 relief to applicant and even then the

¶21

4 SA/223/2023 DIMPLE VS. PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE AND OTHERS

¶22

applicant failed to repay the agreed installments and due to constant default in the loan account, the account of the applicant was classified as NPA on 12.05.2021 strictly in accordance with law; that thereafter, to recover the outstanding loan amount, the DHFL issued the demand notice dated 23.08.2021 under Section 13(2) of the Act and the same was duly served upon applicant and the same was also published in two newspapers; that thereafter, possession notice dated 13.07.2022 under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued, which was served upon applicant and was also published in two newspapers as well as the said notice was also pasted on the conspicuous part of the mortgaged property; that therefore, it is absolutely wrong to say that no notice was ever served upon applicant; that applicant was well aware of each and every notice and step taken by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and was kept mum and choose not to respond to the said notices; that since the applicant failed to repay the demanded amount, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 applied for the order under Section 14 of the Act and obtained the order dated 16.05.2023 under Section 14 of the Act and in pursuant to the same, the Tehsildar concerned issued letter dated 21.08.2023, which was rightly issued and the same was sustainable in the eye of Law; that applicant has not approached respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for repayment of overdue amount; that Rs.6,84,809/as on 27.01.2024 is overdue amount in the loan account of the applicant; that all the notices issued under the Act had been served upon applicant as per Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for brevity); that as far as service regarding proceedings of the Court of CJM under Section 14 of the Act is concerned, the same is not mandatory to be served as per settled principle of law; that the amount deposited by applicant i.e., Rs.1.50 Lacs was not sufficient to clear the overdue amount; that all the action initiated by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 under the Act are legal and in accordance with law. Therefore, it was prayed that the present SA may kindly be dismissed.

¶23

5 SA/223/2023 DIMPLE VS. PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE AND OTHERS

¶24

(5) After service of notices upon respondent Nos. 3 & 4 none has appeared on their behalf and no reply was filed. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 29.01.2024.

¶25

(6) No replication was filed by applicant to the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

¶26

(7) I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. Jatinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate for Applicant, who appeared through Video Conferencing and Sh. S.C. Prajapati, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and gone through the record carefully. None was present on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

¶27

(8) Sh. Jatinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate argued that the present SA has been filed by applicant on 03.10.2023 challenging the possession letter dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P-6). It was further argued that therefore, the present SA has been filed within 45 days and not barred by limitation.

¶28

(9) Per contra , Sh. S.C. Prajapati, Advocate argued that the present SA is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed being time barred. It was further argued that the SA was not filed within 45 days as per the Act. It was further argued that applicant has not came before this Tribunal with clean hands, therefore applicant is not entitled to get any relief from this Tribunal.

¶29

(10) In the SA, applicant has calculated the period of limitation from the possession letter dated 21.08.2023 issued by Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Kharar ( Annexure P-6 ). Though the said letter was indicated as Annexure P-4 in the limitation clause but Annexure P-4 is demand notice dated 23.08.2021 as mentioned in the Index of the SA. (11) In fact, any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-Section (4) of the Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his Authorised Officer under this Chapter, may make an application along with such fee, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken. In sub-Section (4) of the Section 13 nowhere it is provided that a letter issued by Tehsildar cum Executive

¶30

6 SA/223/2023 DIMPLE VS. PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE AND OTHERS

¶31

Magistrate in compliance of order passed by the Magistrate concerned under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is a measure. In fact, such letter is an information for the execution of the order passed under Section 14 of the Act. Therefore, limitation to file SA cannot be counted from date of this letter.

¶32

(12) Order passed by the Magistrate concerned under Section 14 of the Act was not challenged by applicant in this SA. Copy of this order is also not on record. Therefore, the limitation should be counted for filing of the SA from the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P-5).

¶33

(13) Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provides, the time limit of 45 days of filing application under this Section from the date on which a measure had been taken referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his Authorised Officer. Therefore, this SA was to be filed within 45 days from the date of measure referred to in subSection (4) of Section 13 or sale notice.

¶34

(14) This shows that this SA was filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days.

¶35

(15) No application was filed by applicant for condonation of delay in filing the present Securitization Application rather Sh. Jatinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate has argued that there is no delay in filing the present Securitization Application.

¶36

(16) As discussed above, applicant has calculated the time of limitation from the wrong date and in fact, this SA was filed beyond limitation period.

¶37

(17) The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Transcore Vs. Union of India and Another (2008) 1 SCC 125 has held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security.

¶38

(18) In light of above facts and circumstances, this SA was filed beyond the period of limitation. No reason whatsoever explained for non-filing of SA within

¶39

7 SA/223/2023 DIMPLE VS. PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE AND OTHERS

¶40

the limitation period. No formal application or oral prayer was made to condone the delay in filing the present Securitization Application.

¶41

(19) In light of above, this SA is barred by limitation.

¶42

(20) Sh. Jatinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate further argued that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 23.08.2021 (Annexure P-4) was not served upon applicant as per Rules.

¶43

(21) Per contra , Sh. S.C. Prajapati, Advocate argued that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 23.08.2021 was duly served upon applicant as per Rules. It was further argued that copy of said notice along with copies of receipts of registered posts along with tracking reports as well as copies of newspaper publication are annexed as Annexure R-3.

¶44

(22) In light of above factual position, it is established that notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was validly issued and also served upon applicant as per Rules. There is no illegality/irregularity in the issuance of above notice.

¶45

(23) Sh. Jatinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate further argued that notice under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 13.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) was not served upon applicant as per Rules.

¶46

(24) Per contra , Sh. S.C. Prajapati, Advocate argued that notice under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 13.07.2022 was duly served upon applicant as per Rules. It was further argued that copy of said notice and copy of affixation as well as copies of newspaper publication are annexed as Annexure R-4.

¶47

(25) It reveals from record that notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued and sent on the same address as was mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. When service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was proved served upon applicant as discussed above then it may be safely presumed that the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also served upon applicant. It further reveals from record that the said notice was also affixed on the conspicuous part of the secured asset and the same was also duly published in the two leading newspapers

¶48

8 SA/223/2023 DIMPLE VS. PIRAMAL CAPITAL & HOUSING FINANCE AND OTHERS

¶49

(Annexure R-4). This shows that the possession notice was served on the persons concerned as per Rules. (26) Sh. Jatinder Singh Dadwal, Advocate further argued that no notice was served upon applicant before passing the order under Section 14 of the Act by Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶50

(27) Per contra , Sh. S.C. Prajapati, Advocate argued that it is not mandatory to serve the notice upon applicant by CJM before passing of order under Section 14 of the Act.

¶51

(28) In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, there is no provision of issuing of notice to applicant before passing any order under Section 14 of the Act and there is force in the above argument of Sh. S.C. Prajapati, Advocate.

¶52

(29) No other point was argued/pressed.

¶53

(30) After considering the arguments of both the parties and evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that present SA was filed beyond the stipulated period of 45 days and no application was moved by applicant to condone the delay, no contention was stated in the SA to condone the delay and also nothing was argued to condone the delay. In fact, there is no ground is on record for condoning the delay. In fact, after perusal of record as well as the above discussion shows that all the proceedings initiated by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are in accordance with law and applicant is failed to show any irregularity/illegality in the proceedings. Therefore, this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶54

(31) Accordingly, this SA is dismissed. Record be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶55

Date: 09.03.2026

¶56

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal.

¶57

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Dimple v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dimple v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Gurpreet Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S Kula Majra and Company and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jasvinder Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Baldev Singh and another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Sarabjit Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Gurwinder Singh and Another