SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 4878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Vikash Mathur – Appellant
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank & Anr. – Respondents
CM(M) 1050 of 2023 & CM APPLs. 34146-47 of 2023
Decided On : 10-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Anjaneya Mishra, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yashvardhan Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act are to be pursued, and the court may decline to entertain a petition when such remedies are available.

Headnote:

SARFAESI Act - Loan Dispute - Section 13(2), 13(4), 17(1) - The court discussed the loan dispute under the SARFAESI Act, specifically focusing on the validity of measures taken by the respondent under sections 13(2) and 13(4) and the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17(1). The court emphasized the statutory remedies available to the petitioner and declined to entertain the petition, dismissing it and disposing of all pending applications.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner took a housing loan from HDFC Bank and later negotiated with a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) to take over the loan. The NBFC sanctioned two loans for the petitioner and his wife. Subsequently, the NBFC initiated SARFAESI proceedings to recover the outstanding loan amount, leading to a dispute over the validity of the measures taken.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner defaulted in loan repayment and had been filing multiple proceedings to resist the recovery efforts. The court declined to entertain the petition, emphasizing the statutory remedies available to the petitioner.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the measures taken by the NBFC under the SARFAESI Act, the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and the petitioner's default in loan repayment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available to challenge the impugned order and declined to entertain the petition, citing its earlier order and the pending proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and disposed of all pending applications.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 34147/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 1050/2023& CM APPL. 34146/2023

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi ("DRT") in IA No. 2571/2023 filed in TSA No.539/2022, whereby the DRT has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner for restraining the Respondent No. 1 from taking physical possession of the property bearing Unit no.007, ground floor, Tower CS 10, Supertech Capetown, Plot no.GH-011A, Sector-74, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida UP-201306, having a super area of 1150 Sq. Ft. with one covered car parking (`subject property').

The brief facts as stated in the petition are here as under:

2. It is stated that on 27.05.2017, the Petitioner and his wife i.e., Smt. Abha Sinha took a housing loan facility of Rs.49,83,000/- from HDFC Bank, Munirka branch at the interest rate of 8.75% per annum. It is stated that during the subsistence of the said loan facility, the Petitioner came into a contact with the Respondent No.2 who is a Non-Banking Finance Company (`NBFC') and started negotiation for taking over the existing housing loan facility rendered by HDFC with a better interest rate of 8.50% per annum on the remaining principal amount of Rs.49,09,452/-.

2.1. It is stated that Respondent No. 2 took over the existing loan facility and foreclosed the said loan on 30.06.2018 by making a payment of Rs.49,52,595/- to HDFC Bank.

2.2. It is stated that the Petitioner received a sanction letter dated 15.06.2018 provided by Respondent No. 2 which was unsigned and not in conformity with the quotations which were mutually decided between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2

2.3. It is stated that the Respondent No.2 sanctioned two loans in favour of the Petitioner and his wife qua two separate loan accounts bearing No. 401HSL81227185 & 401HFS81227784. It is further stated that in loan account bearing No. 401HSL81227185, the Respondent No.2 sanctioned Rs.47,84,000/- as home loan for a period of 240 months at the rate of interest 8.50% per annum and in the other loan account bearing no. 401HFS81227784, the Respondent No.2 sanctioned Rs.7,07,000/- as personal loan for the period of 120 months at the rate of interest 9.35% per annum.

2.4. It is stated that on 03.03.2020 the Respondent No. 1 sent a letter to the Petitioner and his wife informing that, from the effective date i.e., 26.12.2019; Respondent No. 1 has become solely entitled to "Receivables" arising out of Credit Facility granted under facility documents.

2.5. It is stated that subsequently, Respondent No. 1 vide demand notice dated 09.10.2020 under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (`SARFAESI Act, 2002') qua the home loan account bearing no. 401HSL81221785, demanding a total sum of Rs.54,98,361/- alongwith interest and penalty as on 30.09.2020 within a period of 60 days from the date of notice.

2.6. It is stated on 10.11.2020, the Petitioner and his wife replied to the notice dated 09.10.2020 and submitted their objections under Section 13(13A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Respondent No.1.

2.7. It is stated that Respondent No. 1 arbitrarily took measures under section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by issuing and affixing the possession notice dated 08.01.2021 under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 for taking the possession of the subject property.

2.8. The Petitioner aggrieved by the notice dated 08.01.2021; filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 1335 of 2021 titled as "Vikas Mathur & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors." whereby, vide order dated 02.02.2021 this Court had directed the DRT to adjudicate the legal implications of the notification dated 24.02.20220 issued by the Ministry of Fina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top