Dismissed

Anoop Oswal Hosiery and Others v. Aditya Birla Finance Limited

DRT11 May 2026SA/297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act to restrain possession and auction. Tribunal addressed challenges regarding NPA classification, objection handling, and Section 14 verification. Dismissed claims of illegality, citing no substantial prejudice from procedural lapses.

What did the court decide?

Application to restrain possession and auction dismissed; other pending IAs disposed of accordingly.

Anoop Oswal Hosiery and Others versus Aditya Birla Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

PRESIDED OVER: SH. MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶3

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO.297/2025

¶4

Date of Institution: 20.09.2025

¶5

Date of Decision: 11.05.2026

¶6

Anoop Oswal Hosiery through its proprietors i.e.,

¶7

(a) Sh. Anoop Jain R/o H.No. B-II-2017, 9 I L-4, Near Nahar Karyana Store, Krishna Street, Shivpuri, Ludhiana

¶8

(b) Smt. Neha Jain R/o H.No. B-II-2017, 9 I L-4, Near Nahar Karyana Store, Krishna Street, Shivpuri, Ludhiana

--Applicants

Versus

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. through its Authorised Officer, Plot No. SCO 24, 6^th Floor, Ludhiana Trade Tower, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana

¶13

--Respondent

¶14

Argued by: Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate for Applicants Ms. Ojasvi Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Kartik Khitcher, Advocate for Respondent (through VC) (already ex parte vide order dated 07.02.2026)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

(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 restrain the respondent from taking further physical possession of the property and to restrain from auctioning the secured asset of the applicants.

¶17

(2) It was stated in the application that applicants are a co-borrower of the loan taken from the respondent; that applicants and other co-borrowers had taken a Term Loan from respondent for total sum of Rs.4,50,000/- vide Agreement dated 30.10.2019; that to secure the above said credit facility applicants had mortgaged properties i.e., property bearing House

¶18

¶19

SA/297/2025

¶20

ANOOP VERMA AND OTHERS VS. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD.

¶21

No.B-II-2017/9/14, Near Nahar Karyana Store, Krishna Street, Shivpuri, Ludhiana & property bearing No. B-25G-5-300, Near PNB, Sekhewal, Near Shiv Puri, Ludhiana, Punjab; that applicants being co-borrowers were regularly making the payments at beginning of the year 2020, the account was restricted by the respondent; that thereafter, due to Covid-19 Pandemic, applicants had made a minor irregularity in making the payments, therefore loan account of applicants was classified as NPA on 01.04.2021 (as mentioned in notice under Section 13(2) of the Act) by respondent; that no notice has been served upon the applicants while declaring the account as NPA and account was classified as NPA wrongly; that thereafter, demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 15.06.2021, which was received by applicants on 20.06.2021 (Annexure A-1); that applicants had moved objections to the said notice under Section 13(3-A) of the Act dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure A-2); that respondent had rejected the objections of applicants vide its reply dated 30.08.2021 (Annexure A-3); that respondent had not considered the objections of applicants properly; that thereafter, respondent had issued possession notice dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure A-5); that thereafter, respondent had moved an application under Section 14 of the Act before District Magistrate concerned; that this application and affidavit in itself have been attested and verified in Delhi, whereas the property over which the Ld. DM, Ludhiana could have exercised its jurisdiction is in Ludhiana, therefore this verification itself is absolutely flawed and illegal on the face of it; that no satisfaction has been recorded by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana in the present case and the order under Section 14 of the Act has been passed in abstracted manner; that intention of the respondent is much clear that it hastily wants to dispose of the loan by selling the house for an throw away consideration. Therefore, it was prayed that present SA may kindly be allowed. (3) After service of notice upon respondent Sh. Kartik Khitcher, Advocate was appeared on its behalf and sufficient time already provided to him for filing reply to SA but after several opportunities, no reply to

¶22

3 SA/297/2025

¶23

ANOOP VERMA AND OTHERS VS. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD.

¶24

SA was filed by respondent. On 07.02.2026, due to non-appearance of respondent since morning upto post lunch session despite repeated calls, respondent was proceeded against ex parte.

¶25

(4) Since no reply to SA was filed by respondent, no replication was filed by applicants.

¶26

(5) I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate for Applicants and Ms. Ojasvi Sharma, Advocate for Respondent, who appeared through Video Conferencing and gone through the record carefully.

¶27

(6) Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate argued that respondent has wrongly classified the account of applicants as NPA on 01.04.2021 and no intimation/notice was given by respondent regarding the classification of loan account as NPA.

¶28

(7) Per contra , Ms. Ojasvi Sharma, Advocate argued that the account of applicant was classified as NPA in strict compliance of Rules and there is no illegality in it. It was further argued that there is no requirement under any law to issue advance notice to borrowers and guarantors regarding the classification of account as NPA.

¶29

(8) Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate could not explained as to how loan account was wrongly classified as NPA. There is nothing on record, which can show that loan account can be classified as NPA only after continuous default of 90 days. In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, if borrower defaults in payment of three installments on due dates and whenever there is default of total 90 days then secured creditor is entitled to classify the loan account as NPA, if there is no legal impediment.

¶30

(9) There is nothing on record to show that loan account of applicant was classified as NPA wrongly.

¶31

(10) Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate further argued that after receiving of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 15.06.2021 (Annexure A-1), applicants had moved representation under Section 13(3-A) of the Act dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure A-2) but respondents had not considered the objections of applicants properly.

¶32

(11) It reveals from record that copy of representation moved by applicants under Section

¶33

¶34

SA/297/2025

¶35

ANOOP VERMA AND OTHERS VS. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD.

¶36

13(3-A) of the Act dated 13.08.2021 is annexed as Annexure A-2 to the SA and reply sent by respondent to their objections were also annexed along with SA dated 30.08.2021 (Annexure A-3). It further reveals from record that the reply to representation under Section 13(3-A) of the Act covered all objections in respect of demand notice were replied. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that respondent has not considered the objections raised by applicants properly.

¶37

(12) It was not argued by Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate that possession notice dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure A-5) was not served upon applicants neither in the SA nor during the course of arguments. Therefore, adjudication on the service of possession notice is not required.

¶38

(13) Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate further argued that respondent had filed application under Section 14 of the Act before District Magistrate, Ludhiana and order was passed on this application without recording the satisfaction about the contents of the application and affidavit.

¶39

(14) Per contra , Ms. Ojasvi Sharma, Advocate argued that proper and complete affidavit has been filed by respondent along with the application under Section 14 of the Act before District Magistrate concerned and the order was passed correctly. Therefore, the averments made by the applicants in this regard are without any basis.

¶40

(15) Perusal of the order dated 07.03.2022 passed by District Magistrate, Ludhiana (Annexure A-10) shows that order was passed by the District Magistrate, Ludhiana considering the facts and contents of the application under Section 14 of the Act. There is nothing on record which can show that the District Magistrate, Ludhiana has not passed the order properly without considering the facts of the application and affidavit. Therefore, there is no force in the above argument of Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate.

¶41

(16) Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate further argued that application and affidavit filed under Section 14 of the Act by respondent has been attested and verified in Delhi, whereas the property over which the District

¶42

¶43

SA/297/2025

¶44

ANOOP VERMA AND OTHERS VS. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD.

¶45

Magistrate, Ludhiana has its jurisdiction is in Ludhiana, therefore this verification is not legal as per law. (17) Copy of application moved under Section 14 of the Act dated 01.11.2021 is annexed as Annexure A- 8 and affidavit in support of it is annexed as Annexure A-9 to the SA. These are not certified copies rather they are true copies, on the basis of which it cannot be said that the affidavit was sworn and verified on which place. At the most, if for the sake of argument, contention of Sh. Akhilesh Vyas, Advocate is correct then it is only trivial procedural defect/lapse, which cannot nullify the SARFAESI proceedings as propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court. (18) Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s L & T Housing Finance Limited vs. M/s Trishul Developers in Civil Appeal No(s). 3413 of 2020 arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 18360 of 2019 decided on 27.10.2020 has observed that trivial procedural lapse is not a ground of nullify SARFEASI proceedings initiated by secured creditors, if no substantial prejudice was caused to borrower. It is further observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that proceedings initiated under the SARFEASI Act by the secured creditor cannot be nullified merely on the ground to technical defect and procedural lapse unless substantial prejudice was caused to the defaulters. No such prejudice is indicated during the course of arguments.

¶46

(19) Ms. Ojasvi Sharma, Advocate argued that Rs.5,08,56,528.37 was outstanding due against applicants as per notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 15.06.2021 and applicants had never deposited even a single penny in their loan account after classification of loan account as NPA. It was further argued that applicants are chronic defaulters. Therefore, they are not entitled to get any relief from this Tribunal in their favour.

¶47

(20) In the SARFAESI Act nowhere it is provided that applicants have any right not to deposit their outstanding dues. It appears applicants are not interested in deposit of their dues (public money) rather applicants are only interested in dragging the Financial Institution in the litigations.

¶48

6 SA/297/2025

¶49

ANOOP VERMA AND OTHERS VS. ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LTD.

¶50

(21) No other point was argued/pressed. (22) After the consideration of all facts, circumstances as well as after perusal of record, there is no case made out in favour of applicants and this SA deserves to be dismissed. (23) SA is dismissed. Any other IAs pending stands disposed of accordingly. Record be consigned to record room after due compliance. Date: 11.05.2026 Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Anoop Oswal Hosiery and Others v. Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Oswal Hosiery and Others v. Aditya Birla Finance Limited

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Ritik Parshant Fashion and Another

State Bank of India versus Smt. Amandeep Kaur

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Lovepreet Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kartar Singh

Rohit Verma and Another versus Karnataka Bank Limited and Others

Canara Bank versus Smt. Uma Sharma through Her Legal Heirs and Another