BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
Subhash Singh …. (Applicant)
Versus
Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited & Ors. …. (Respondent)
Securitization Application (SA) No. 379 of 2022
REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
This rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Applicant, Subhash Singh, in response to
the Written Statement filed by the Respondent No. 1, Piramal Capital &
Housing Finance Limited. The Applicant submits the following points in
rebuttal to the preliminary objections and arguments made by the Respondent.
1. On the Respondent’s Status and Authority:
The Applicant acknowledges that Respondent No. 1, Piramal Capital &
Housing Finance Limited, is a legally incorporated entity, and that Ms. Stuti
Dwivedi is the authorized officer to represent the company in this matter.
However, it is respectfully submitted that this authorization and legal standing
does not in any way invalidate the Applicant’s claims regarding the
Respondent’s non-compliance with legal norms during the loan process and its
subsequent recovery actions.
2. Allegations of Malafide Intentions:
The Respondent has alleged that the Applicant approached this Hon’ble
Tribunal with malafide intentions and has withheld substantial facts. This claim
is vehemently denied. The Applicant has disclosed all material facts and acted in
good faith. The Respondent, on the other hand, has initiated actions under the
SARFAESI Act without giving due consideration to the circumstances
surrounding the alleged default. The Applicant had attempted to resolve the
matter through negotiations, but the Respondent’s non-cooperative and high-
handed approach has forced the Applicant to seek legal recourse.
Response to Specific Claims:
1. Loan Agreement and Disbursement:
The Applicant admits that a loan agreement was entered into with Respondent
No. 1, but the process followed by the Respondent in terms of documentation
and interest calculations was neither transparent nor fair. The Applicant believes
that the EMI payments calculated were erroneous and that undue pressure was
exerted to sign documents without adequate disclosure of key terms.
Moreover, the Respondent’s claim that the loan was properly disbursed and that
all formalities were completed fails to acknowledge the inconsistencies in their
own process. It is submitted that the Respondent failed to provide sufficient
opportunities to rectify payment delays and chose to classify the account as an
NPA prematurely, without following due process.
2. Classification as NPA:
The Applicant disputes the classification of the loan account as a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA) on 11.05.2020. The Respondent has failed to follow
the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines and National Housing Board (NHB)
regulations while making this classification. The Applicant had made several
payments and had requested additional time due to unforeseen financial
constraints. The Respondent failed to take these into account and instead
proceeded to classify the account as NPA, which is a clear violation of RBI’s
prudential norms for income recognition and asset classification.
3. Issuance of Demand Notice under SARFAESI Act:
The Respondent claims that it issued a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of
the SARFAESI Act, 2002, on 30.04.2021. The Applicant submits that this
Demand Notice was issued without any prior attempt by the Respondent to
explore alternative mechanisms to resolve the outstanding dues, such as loan
restructuring or rescheduling, which the RBI encourages for housing loans. The
issuance of the Possession Notice under Section 13(4) on 06.10.2021 was
similarly premature and unjustified, especially given the ongoing
communications between the Applicant and the Respondent at the time.
4. Possession of Secured Asset:
The Respondent has claimed that it has rightfully obtained an order from the
Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) to take possession of the
secured asset. The Applicant contests this claim, stating that the possession was
obtained through procedural lapses, and the Respondent did not adhere to the
proper service of notices as mandated under the SARFAESI Act. The Applicant
was not given a fair opportunity to object to the possession, and the Respondent
acted with undue haste in enforcing the possession order.
5. Malafide Actions of the Respondents:
The Respondent has accused the Applicant of filing a baseless Securitization
Application (SA) with malafide intent. On the contrary, it is the Respondent
who has acted in bad faith by seeking to enforce possession of the secured asset
without giving due regard to the Applicant’s rights and without providing
sufficient time for rectifying the default. The Applicant submits that the
Respondent is using the SARFAESI Act as a tool for coercive recovery, rather
than as a legal remedy of last resort.
LEGAL GROUNDS:
1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Respondent’s actions, particularly the classification of the loan as NPA
and the issuance of the Demand Notice, have been carried out without giving
the Applicant adequate notice or the opportunity to rectify the alleged default.
This is a direct violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. Non-Compliance with RBI Guidelines:
The Respondent has failed to comply with the Reserve Bank of India’s
guidelines on the treatment of non-performing assets and has taken recovery
action without following due process. The Applicant’s financial difficulties were
never considered, and no attempt was made to restructure the loan as per RBI
norms.
3. Misuse of SARFAESI Act:
The SARFAESI Act is intended as a remedy of last resort, to be used only
after all other avenues for debt recovery have been exhausted. The Respondent’s
hasty invocation of the SARFAESI Act is indicative of its malafide intentions
and disregard for the Applicant’s financial situation.
Prayer:
In light of the above, the Applicant respectfully prays before this Hon’ble
Tribunal to:
1. Dismiss the objections raised by the Respondent in its Written Statement.
2. Allow the Securitization Application (SA) filed by the Applicant.
3. Set aside the possession order obtained by the Respondent.
4. Direct the Respondent to explore alternative mechanisms for resolving the
alleged default, including loan restructuring or rescheduling.
5. Pass any other order that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of
justice.
Date: [Date of Filing]
Place: New Delhi
Counsel for the Applicant:
Subhash Singh
