Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. IIFL Wealth Finance Ltd. (IIFL), the Respondent's secured creditor, has assigned the debt to the Petitioner, an Asset Reconstruction Company.

4. On 29 December 2017, IIFL and the Respondent -

Borrower (Respondent) entered into a Master Finance Agreement with terms and conditions under which IIFL agreed to provide a loan. On 29 December 2017, IIFL sanctioned a loan of approximately Rs. 20 Crores in favour of the Respondents. Pursuant to an application made on 12 March 2019, IIFL enhanced the facility to Rs.21.50 Crores as per the terms and conditions of the second sanction letter. On 26 December 2019, IIFL further enhanced the loan under the Master Finance Agreement to Rs.23 Crores as per the third sanction letter. On 25 June 2020, IIFL issued a notice declaring an Event of Default and called upon the Respondents to pay the outstanding amount. By two separate agreements for sale dated 25 December 2020 and 12 February 2021, the properties at Lonavala, which one R.M. Parikh HUF mortgaged, were sold by R.M. Parikh HUF to third parties, and the proceeds were adjusted against the outstanding loan. On 18 May 2021, the Respondents requested to grant temporary financial assistance, provide a maximum moratorium, and reduce the interest rate on loan. IIFL, 4 905. WP(Lodg.) 39107.2022..doc on 10 June 2021, again declared an Event of Default and called upon the Respondents to pay the then outstanding amounts. The Respondents did not make any payment. IIFL filed Commercial Suit (L) No. 15734 of 2021 in the Original side of this Court on 12 July 2021 against the Respondents for recovering the outstanding loan amount of Rs.24,39,28,178/- inclusive of interest, penal interest and TDS till the date of the filing of the Suit and for enforcing the mortgage security. On 13 August 2021, IIFL filed three Arbitration Petitions in the Delhi High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, against Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Mr. Hemant Parikh as personal guarantor. IIFL issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), on 24 August 2021, calling upon the Respondents to pay the then outstanding amount of Rs.24,78,91,801/- along with further interest, penal interest and TDS.

5. On 28 September 2021, IIFL and the Petitioner entered into Assignment Agreement as per Section 5(1)(b) of the SARFAESI Act on agreed terms and conditions. On 27 September 2021, the Respondents replied to the Notice dated 24 August 2021 under Section 13(2) to IIFL, and the Petitioner replied to this communication on 6 October 2021. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 27 January 2022 in IA(L) No. 25021 of 2022, permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the Commercial Suit 5 905. WP(Lodg.) 39107.2022..doc with liberty to file proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in view of the assignment of the loan in its favour.

23. The Respondent advanced one more argument to support the impugned order that since IIFL issued the initial notice under Section 13(2) the Petitioner, who was merely the assignee of the debt of IIFL, had no authority to give a response to the Respondent's reply to the Section 13(2) notice. Only the debt was assigned and not the right to continue proceedings initiated by the Section 13(2) notice. Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act does not give any power to the assignee of a debt to continue with any action pursuant to the Section 13(2) notice issued by its predecessor in title. It is contended Assuming the Section 13(2) notice to be a proceeding, it would require an order of DRT or DRAT under Section 5(5) of the SARFAESI Act for substitution of the Asset Reconstruction Company in the pending proceedings. The Petitioner contends that this argument was never advanced before both the Tribunals and even otherwise, the assignment in favour of the Petitioner is duly made, and the Petitioner has invested a substantial amount. The contention of the Petitioner is that in law and fact, it has rightly responded to the Respondent's reply to the 21 905. WP(Lodg.) 39107.2022..doc notice.

25. The Respondents contended that they had called upon the IIFL to reconcile the accounts to show how a sale consideration of Rs.2.05 crores of the Lonavala properties has been adjusted, and it was incumbent on IIFL to address this issue, however, the Petitioner has merely stated that the Respondents had been shown the reconciliation of accounts, even though Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act obliges the secured creditor to give a detailed 22 905. WP(Lodg.) 39107.2022..doc response. The Petitioner has relied on the record to demonstrate that the accounts show adjustment.