DRAT Defers PNB Housing Finance Move to Take possession of Mortgaged Property, Orders ₹20 lakh Deposit Within Two Weeks [Read Order]

To recover the amount, the bank filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur, seeking possession of the secured property

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) Chennai has temporarily deferred a bank's move to take possession of a mortgaged property, granting conditional relief to the borrower that possession proceedings be held in abeyance for two weeks, during which the borrower must deposit ₹20 lakh with the lender, PNB Housing Finance Ltd .

The appeal was filed by the borrower,Dr. Rajeshwari, to challenge the order by filing a securitisation application (SA) with a delay of 41 days. During the hearing of the delay condonation petition, she offered to deposit ₹20 lakh. The Debt Recovery Tribunal , Coimbatore, condoned the delay subject to this payment and directed the Registry to number the SA only upon proof of deposit.

Before the Chennai DRT, the borrower submitted that the writ petition had earlier been filed before the Madras High Court, to restrain the execution of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order. The High Court directed the petitioner to deposit ₹10 lakh with the bank, which was duly complied with. In compliance with this order, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid. So the possession was scheduled for the following day and thus, the borrower sought protective relief from the tribunal.

On the other hand, the respondent, PNB Housing Finance Limited, initially objected to condoning the delay on the ground that the appellant approached the High Court of Madras to condone the delay. Since the appellant voluntarily came forward to pay a substantial sum of Rs. 20.00 lakhs to the bank, the respondent bank had no objection to allowing the delay condonation petition.

It was also argued that the appellant was deliberately delaying recovery by first approaching the Madras High Court, then filing a delayed securitisation application before the DRT, and now pursuing this appeal, which had earlier been dismissed for non‑prosecution.

The bench of Justice G Chandrasekharan , observed that the appeal was against an interim order and the SA was still pending. The DRAT also upheld the condition of ₹20 lakh deposit, deferred possession until compliance, and directed the DRT to number and dispose of the SA expeditiously. In case of default, the bank was granted liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, this appeal was disposed of

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates