Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Trishul Developer in M/S L And T Housing Finance Limited vs M/S Trishul Developers on 27 October, 2020Matching Fragments
6. It reveals from the record that the respondents at a later stage failed to maintain financial discipline and subsequently became a defaulter and because of the alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the Facility Agreement executed between the appellant (L&T Housing Finance Ltd.) and the respondents (M/s. Trishul Developers through its Partners) towards completion of its project, the appellant served a demand notice dated 16th December, 2016 to the respondents to pay the outstanding dues within the stipulated period mentioned in the demand notice. Since the respondents failed to make their outstanding payment, under the given circumstances the appellant classified the account of the respondents as Non performing Assets (NPA) on 15 th April, 2017 and sent a notice of demand dated 14th June, 2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon the respondents to pay the outstanding dues i.e. Rs.16,97,54,851/ (Rupees Sixteen Crores Ninety Seven Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty One Only) as on 31st May, 2017 in terms of the notice with future interest till actual payment within sixty days from the date of the receipt of the demand notice.
15. Notably from the very inception at the stage, when the proposal of taking a term loan from the appellant was furnished by the respondents vide their application dated 15 th May, 2015 and accepted by the appellant vide sanction letter dated 07 th August, 2015 (P1), the letterhead which was used for the purpose clearly indicates that on the top of the letterhead towards right, it reflects “L&T Finance (Home Loans)” and on the bottom towards left, is of “L&T Housing Finance Ltd.” with their registered office in Mumbai and this has been duly signed by the authorised signatory of the borrower for M/s. Trishul Developers and by its guarantors.
16. It manifests from the record that the respondents from the initial stage are aware of the procedure which is being followed by the appellant in its correspondence while dealing with its customers and that is the same practice being followed by the appellant when demand notice dated 16 th December, 2016 was served at a later stage. The demand notice in explicit terms clearly indicates the execution of the Facility Agreement dated 11th August, 2015 between the appellant (L&T Housing Finance Ltd.) and the respondents (M/s. Trishul Developers through its partners) and of the default being committed by the respondents (borrower/guarantor) in furtherance thereof, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was served on the same pattern of the letterhead which is being ordinarily used by the appellant in its correspondence with its customers and the demand notice dated 14 th June, 2017 without leaving any iota of doubt is in reference to the nonfulfillment of the terms and conditions of the Facility Agreement dated 11 th August, 2015 executed between the parties and even the schedule of security profile which has been annexed thereto is in reference to the execution of Facility Agreement dated 11 th August, 2015 and its noncompliance of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.