Ramchandra Khandu Shinde v. GIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Ramchandra Khandu Shinde

…Appellant

GIC Housing Finance Ltd.

…Respondent

Case No: Appeal on Diary No. 445/2023

Date of Judgement: 27/03/2023

Judges:

Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

For Appellant: Ms. Sonali Jain along with Ms. Khushboo Agarwal, Advocate.

Download Court Copy CLICK HERE

Facts:

This is an order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai in I.A. No. 183/2023 arising out of Appeal on Diary No. 445/2023. The appellant is Ramchandra Khandu Shinde, and the respondent is GIC Housing Finance Ltd. The appellant is challenging the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-II, Mumbai in I.A. No. 1974/2022 in Securitization Application (S.A.) No. 256/2022. In the DRT order, the injunction sought by the appellant against the respondent bank from taking physical possession of the secured assets was declined. The DRT found no prima facie case as the appellant did not respond to the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act despite being served. The appellant had approached the bank with a One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal, which was accepted, but he failed to pay the OTS amount. The demand notice claimed an amount of ₹38,16,781/- as of 31.03.2019, dated 25.03.2019. After receiving the notice and measures under Sections 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the appellant paid some amounts in instalments. The OTS offer was for ₹56,61,000/-, and the appellant paid ₹23 lakhs in four instalments towards that amount. However, there was a subsequent default, and the OTS proposal failed. After adjusting the amount paid under the OTS proposal, the respondent claims an outstanding of ₹38,31,275/- due from the appellant as of the date of the appeal.

Arguments by the Appellant:

As per the OTS proposal, the outstanding amount was only ₹60,99,631/- as of January 2023, and the interest accrued thereafter could not have increased the amount to over ₹67 lakhs as claimed by the respondent. Even after adjusting the amount paid subsequently, there would be a very minimal balance due from the appellant. The order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act states the outstanding amount as only ₹38,16,781/- as of 28.01.2020. The appellant should be asked to deposit only 25% of the amount actually due. The appellant offers to deposit ₹5 lakhs towards the pre-deposit today. The appellant argues that the notice under Section 13(2) was not served, and the proceedings under Section 13(4) are also challenged. The appellant claims financial strain and has little income, but his income tax returns have not been filed.

Arguments by the Respondent:

The respondent submits that after adjusting the amount paid under the OTS proposal to the balance of ₹67 lakhs, there is still an outstanding amount of ₹38,31,275/- due from the appellant as of the date of the appeal.

Sections and Laws Referred:

Cases Cited:

None