Religare

1. 1 SA No. 472/2022 DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA SA No.- 472/2022 1.Dheeraj Kanwar W/O Dr. Balwant Singh Chirana Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Vidya Bharti Public School, Civil Lines, Sikar, Rajasthan, Sikar, Rajasthan. 2.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) 1.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. 2.As the demand notice was issued on 23.08.2018, order under Section 14 was issued on 28.12.2022, CM

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. 3.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. 4.Reply to SA was filed on 16.11.2022. 5.In the present matter an order of Hon’ble 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. 6.The order of Hon’ble 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), CM

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. 7.As per facts of the case, availing credit facility and default is admitted. 8.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. 9.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. 10. 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 CM

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. 13. 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. 14. 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 Hon’ble High Court at Delhi before Hon’ble 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. CM

5. 5 15. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI submitted that the SA applicant failed to comply with the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by Hon’ble 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. 16. 17. The important fact is about the order of Hon’ble High Court at Delhi dated 16.10.2019 is required to be considered. It is clear that the Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble 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. 18. The order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Hon’ble High Court at Jaipur in Civil Writ Petition filed by SA applicant was passed in the presence of Respondent FI also. 19. I am of the view that if the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by Hon’ble 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. CM

6. 6 20. 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 Hon’ble High Court at Delhi, but it is clear that who stopped Respondent FI to bring this fact in the knowledge of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, where the writ petition was finally disposed of on 28.07.202 on account of alternate remedy. 21. I am of the view that the SA applicant being petitioner before the Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble High Court in WP (C) No. 11029/2019. 22. 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. 23. Similar is the position with LLP charges which has been claimed by the Respondent FI for an amount of Rs. 15,92,285/- CM

7. 7 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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. CM

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 CM