IDFC First Bank Limited filed a petition challenging an order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Delhi. The order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 11 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, for the recovery of ₹6,92,551.63 plus interest. The rejection was based on the amount being less than ₹10,00,000, thus outside the Tribunal's pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act is independent of the RDB Act, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Respondents argued that the RDB Act's pecuniary limits apply, barring the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
On 30.12.2015, IDFC First Bank Limited (the petitioner) entered into a Loan Agreement with respondent no.1 and 2 for ₹23,00,000 (Loan Account No. 4938084). The respondents created a security interest in a property located in Delhi to secure the loan. The respondents failed to comply with repayment obligations, leading to the loan being classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). On 27.06.2017, the petitioner issued a demand notice to the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the District Court appointed a receiver on 09.02.2018 to take possession of the property. The property was sold for ₹21,38,000 on 15.09.2018. After adjusting the sale proceeds, ₹6,92,551.63 remained outstanding. The petitioner then
…Sign in to view the parties.
The petitioner entered…
The petitioner issued a…
IDFC First Bank Limited filed a petition challenging an order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Delhi. The order rejected the petitioner's application under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 11 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, for the recovery of ₹6,92,551.63 plus interest. The rejection was based on the amount being less than ₹10,00,000, thus outside the Tribunal's pecuniary jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act is independent of the RDB Act, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Respondents argued that the RDB Act's pecuniary limits apply, barring the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
On 30.12.2015, IDFC First Bank Limited (the petitioner) entered into a Loan Agreement with respondent no.1 and 2 for ₹23,00,000 (Loan Account No. 4938084). The respondents created a security interest in a property located in Delhi to secure the loan. The respondents failed to comply with repayment obligations, leading to the loan being classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). On 27.06.2017, the petitioner issued a demand notice to the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the District Court appointed a receiver on 09.02.2018 to take possession of the property. The property was sold for ₹21,38,000 on 15.09.2018. After adjusting the sale proceeds, ₹6,92,551.63 remained outstanding. The petitioner then
…The petitioner entered…
The petitioner issued a…