Saxena Law Chamber (1) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Saxena Law Chamber (1)

Description:

Need a GST Bail Lawyer or ITAT Advocate in Jaipur? Experienced Saxena Law Chambers lawyers can assist you with GST legal matters and Income Tax appeals. – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:0
Date added: 22 July 2024
Slides: 9
Provided by: Saxenalawchamber
Category: Other
Tags:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Saxena Law Chamber (1)


1
  • 1
  • SA No. 472/2022
  • DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING
    OFFICER SH. VIVEK SAXENA
  • SA No.- 472/2022
  • Dheeraj Kanwar W/O Dr. Balwant Singh Chirana Aged
    About 52 Years, Resident Of Vidya Bharti Public
    School, Civil Lines, Sikar, Rajasthan, Sikar,
    Rajasthan.
  • M/S Vidya Bharti Sansthan Having Office At Vidya
    Bharti Public School, Civil Lines, Sikar,
    Rajasthan, Sikar, Rajasthan, Sikar, Rajasthan
    Through Its Authorized Signatory Dheeraj Kanwar
    W/O Dr. Balwant Singh Chirana Aged About 52
    Years, Resident Of Vidya Bharti Public School,
    Civil Lines, Rajasthan. Sikar, Rajasthan, Sikar,
  • ...Applicants
  • Versus
  • Religare Finvest Limited, Having Its Office At
    Religare Finvest Limited, 2nd Floor, Rajlok
    Building, 24, Nehru Palace, New
    Delhi-110019.And Having Branch Office At K- 14,
    7th Floor, International Business Center, Ashok
    Marg, C Scheme,, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001
    Through Its Authorised Officer.
  • Respondent FI
  • Present
  • Sh. Abhishek Saxena/Akarsh Mathur, Ld. Counsel
    for the Applicant Sh. Ritesh Dhingra,
    Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
  • (Final Order) (08.11.2023)
  • This SA was filed on 01.08.2022 and vide order
    dated
  • 05.08.2022 and order of status quo was granted by
    this Tribunal.
  • As the demand notice was issued on 23.08.2018,
    order under Section 14 was issued on 28.12.2022,

2
  • 2
  • possession notice was issued on 15.10.2018, but
    final intimation notice for taking possession of
    the subject mortgaged property was issued by
    the respondent bank on 22.08.2019 and so
    Respondent FI itself delayed the proceedings of
    taking physical possession.
  • As the order dated 05.08.2022, through which an
    order of status quo was passed and it
    remained unchallenged, so it has now attained
    finality and still is in existence.
  • Reply to SA was filed on 16.11.2022.
  • In the present matter an order of Honble High
    Court was passed in S.B. Writ Petition No.
    9853/2021 on 10.11.2021, through operation of
    order dated 28.12.2018 passed by District
    Magistrate, Sikar and possession notice dated
    22.08.2019 were stayed and finally through
    order dated 28.07.2022, the said order was
    vacated, writ petition was dismissed on
    account of availability of alternate remedy.
  • The order of Honble High Court is reproduced
    here as under-
  • 28/07/2022
  • Learned counsel for the petitioners pleads no
    instruction.
  • The matter has come up on an application
    No.1/2022 filed by the respondents No.2 3 for
    vacation of ex parte interim order dated
    10.11.2021.
  • Learned counsel for the respondents/applicants
    submits that
  • the writ petition itself is not maintainable
    inasmuch as against the notice dated 22.08.2019
    issued under the provisions of Securitization
    and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
    Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
    (for brevity, "SARFAESI Act") for taking
    possession of the secured asset(s),

3
  • 3
  • the petitioners have an efficacious and
    alternative remedy under Section 17 of the
    SARFAEST Act. He, therefore, prays that the order
    dated 10.11.2021 be vacated and the writ petition
    be dismissed for availability of alternative
    remedy.
  • Heard. Considered.
  • Indisputably, the petitioners have statutory
    remedy under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act
    against the action taken by the
  • respondents under the SARFAESI Act, 2002
    therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on this
    count.
  • The pending application No. 1/2022 stands
    disposed of accordingly.
  • As per facts of the case, availing credit
    facility and default is admitted.
  • Ld. Counsel for the applicant challenged the
    Demand
  • Notice at Annexure A/3 on the ground that
    the demand is illegal because Respondent FI
    has included interest on termination for an
    amount of Rs. 7,80,422/- because this was not a
    matter where the SA applicant being a borrower
    have approached to Respondent FI to close the
    loan account.
  • If Respondent FI wants to close the account
    by way of demand of entire outstanding amount
    they are not entitled for interest on
    termination and based on these grounds, Ld.
    Counsel for the applicant argued that the
    demand so raised in the Demand Notice at
    Annexure A/3 is illegal.
  • Annexure A/4 is the possession notice dated
    15.10.2018 and Ld. Counsel for the
    applicant referred Annexure A/6 IInd Possession
    Notice dated 22.08.2019 and argued that this
    second possession notice was issued without
    withdrawal of earlier possession notice and
    therefore the actions

4
4 conducted by Respondent FI by issuing
second possession notice is also required to be
quashed and set aside. 11. Ld. Counsel for the
applicant also submitted that the payment was
regularly being paid and therefore there was
no cause of action on the basis of which account
can be declared as NOA in ground C to the SA,
they took specific objection.
12.
For ready reference ground C is reproduced
  • here as under-
  • Because, it is utterly shocking to note that the
    bank with the ulterior motives have falsely
    marked the loan account as NPA on 30.06.2018 and
    issued notice dated 23.07.2018 which could not
    have been issued as the applicant was regularly
    paying the loan installment to the Defendant FI.
    Thus, declaring the account NPA is grossly
    illegal and in that light the Section 13(2)
    notice deserves to be quashed and set aside.
  • Based on these grounds, Ld. Counsel for the
  • applicant submitted that all the actions
    initiated by Respondent FI are required to be
    quashed and set aside.
  • Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI while filing
    reply to this SA and while arguing strongly
    objected mainly on the ground that SA applicant
    have already given undertaking before the Honble
    High Court at Delhi before Honble High Court at
    Delhi in W.P. (C) 11029/2019 in order dated
    16.10.2019, the petitioners were granted time to
    deposit the amount, to file an undertaking in the
    form of an affidavit indicating therein that it
    shall abide by the terms of the settlement stated
    out here in above.

5
  • 5
  • Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI submitted that
    the SA applicant failed to comply with the order
    dated 16.10.2019 passed by Honble High Court at
    Delhi. He further submitted that there was
    nothing wrong in the actions initiated by them
    and as the SA applicant is a defaulter, so
    SA filed by them is required to be quashed
    and set aside.
  • Heard arguments and perused the record.
  • The important fact is about the order of
    Honble High Court at Delhi dated
    16.10.2019 is required to be considered. It is
    clear that the Writ Petition filed before the
    Honble High Court at Delhi in the year 2019 in
    which the order was passed on 16.10.2019 and
    after that what proceedings took place, the SA
    applicant as well as Respondent FI failed to
    bring on record.
  • The order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Honble
    High Court at Jaipur in Civil Writ Petition filed
    by SA applicant was passed in the presence of
    Respondent FI also.
  • I am of the view that if the order
    dated 16.10.2019 passed by Honble High Court
    at Delhi was well within the knowledge of
    Respondent FI and then why they have not brought
    said order in the knowledge High Court of
    Rajasthan at Jaipur during the proceedings of
    Civil Writ Petition No. 9853/2021 which was
    disposed of vide order dated 28.07.2022.

6
  • 6
  • I am of the considered view that the SA
    applicant may have ill intention and he
    failed to inform about the fact/order dated
    16.10.2019 passed by Honble High Court at Delhi,
    but it is clear that who stopped Respondent FI
    to bring this fact in the knowledge of Honble
    High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, where the writ
    petition was finally disposed of on 28.07.202 on
    account of alternate remedy.
  • I am of the view that the SA applicant being
    petitioner before the Honble High Court at
    Delhi, if have committed any disobedience of the
    order dated 16.10.2019 they are liable to
    face the consequences of the actions to be
    taken by Honble High Court, but it is also not
    clear that why the Respondent FI failed to inform
    or failed to file any contempt petition before
    the Honble High Court in WP (C) No. 11029/2019.
  • With regard to objection to demand notice, it is
    clear that it do have details of outstanding
    amount, but as rightly pointed out, interest of
    termination for an amount of Rs. 7,80,422/-
    cannot be claimed by Respondent FI because the
    Respondent FI can claim outstanding amount
    including principle amount, cheque bouncing
    charges, amount of pending installment
    only.
  • Similar is the position with LLP charges which
    has been claimed by the Respondent FI for
    an amount of Rs. 15,92,285/-

7
  • 7
  • As detailed statement of account was not filed
    by Respondent FI along with reply to SA, further
    they have simply replied ground C of appeal by
    saying that the content of this Para (C) of the
    ground being false is denied. The subject loan
    account was also classified as NPA as per RBI
    guidelines by the Respondent. It is further
    submitted that the answering respondent had
    already started to proceed in term of the
    provision of SARFAESI Act and issued a demand
    notice in terms of section 13(2) of the SARFAESI
    Act.
  • Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no
    reply to the ground which is taken by SA
    applicant, statement of account was not filed by
    Respondent FI, specifying the demand as mentioned
    in the demand notice and from the charges as
    discussed here in above are claimed illegally,
    therefore demand is illegal and mainly on this
    count only demand notice is required to be
    quashed and set aside.
  • With regard to objection of second possession
    notice, I am of the view that the Respondent FI
    was not required at all to issue any kind
    of final intimation notice for taking
    possession on 22.08.2019 because they have
    already issued possession notice on 15.08.2019
    and so the final intimation notice was not at
    all the possession notice so this objection taken
    by SA applicant is rejected.

8
8 27. Based on these grounds, I am of the view
that as the demand notice is not found as per
law, so the same stands set aside, further
all the actions initiated by the Respondent FI
also stands quashed and set aside.
28.
Respondent FI is at liberty to proceed ahead as
per law afresh.
29.
Accordingly, SA stands disposed of as
infractuous.
30.
Copy of the order be given free to the
concerned parties. 31. File be place before
Registrar for compliance, after compliance file
be consigned to record as per rules. Vivek
Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com