Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 31

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -II,

AT CHANDIGARH

S.A. OF 2020

Suman Singhal and others.

…Applicants

VERSUS

Kotak Mahindra Bank and Another.


…Respondents

I N D E X

Sr. Particulars Dated Pages Court


No. fee

1. Application under 14.01.2020


section 17 of SERFAESI
Act,2002

2. Affidavit of applicant 14.01.2020

3. ANNEXURES

A-1:Notice u/s 13 (2) of 31.10.2019


the SARFEASI Act

A-2:Notice u/s 13(4) of 07.01.2020


SARFAESI Act

4. Power of attorney 13.01.2020

NOTES:

1. Any such or similar petition filed before this


Hon’ble Court or Hon’ble High court or Supreme
Court of India:- Nil

2. Caveat if any filed.: No


3. Law and bare act : - Securitization &
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act, 2002

Place: CHANDIGARH

Dated: 14.01.2020

THROUGH COUNSEL

(VAIBHAV JAIN)

ADVOCATE

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

Enr. NO.P-1493/2009
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -
II, AT CHANDIGARH

S.A No.________ OF 2020

M E M O O F P A R T I E S

1. Mrs. Suman Singhal w/o Mr. Sant Kumar aged about

50 years, r/o Shop No. 16, Ward No. -2, Sirsa

Road, New Grain Market, Hissar, Haryana.

2. Kusum Singhal w/o Mr. Basant Kumar, aged about 47

years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar, Haryana.

3. M/s DM & Sons., through sole proprietor Mr. Basant

Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged about 51 years,

having registered office at Shop No. 16-A, New

Grain Market, Hissar, Haryana.

4. M/s Dawarka Dass Mahabir Parshad, through sole

proprietor Mr. Sant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad,

aged about 52 years, having registered office at

Shop No. 16, New Model Anaj Mandi, Hissar,

Haryana.

5. M/S DM Industries, through its partner Mr. Sant

Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged about 52 years,

having registered office at Jhansal Road, 7 KM

Stone, 16 AMS, Tehsil Bhadra, Nohar, Distt.

Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
6. Mr. Basant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged about

51 years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

7. Mr. Saubhagya Singhal s/o Sh. Sant Kumar, aged

about 29 Years, r/o 16, New Grain Market, Hissar,

Haryana.

8. Mr. Sant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged about 52

years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar, Haryana.

9. Mr. Mahabir Parshad s/o Mr. Dwarka Dass(now

deceased) through his legal heirs:-

(I) Mr. Basant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged

about 51 years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

(II) Mr. Sant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged

about 52 years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

(III)Mrs. Kanta Bansal w/o SK Bansal, aged about

60 years, r/o #590, Sector -14, Hissar.

(IV)Mrs. Parul Aggarwal w/o Harish Aggarwal, aged

about 46 years r/o Allo Mandi, Kanpur, Uttar

Pradesh.

(V) Mrs. Lalita Goyal w/o Late Sh. Sita Ram Goyal,

aged about 40 years r/o Shiv Colony, Adampur,

Hissar.

…Applicants

VERSUS
1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., through Authorized

Officer, Ground Floor Kamala Palace, Plot No. 57,

Red Square Market, Kamla Nagar, Hissar, Haryana.

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., through Authorized

Officer, 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla

Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

…Respondents

Place: CHANDIGARH

Dated: 14.01.2020

THROUGH COUNSEL

(VAIBHAV JAIN)

ADVOCATE

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT


BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -
II, AT CHANDIGARH

S.A. OF 2020

1. Mrs. Suman Singhal w/o Mr. Sant Kumar aged about

50 years, r/o Shop No. 16, Ward No. -2, Sirsa

Road, New Grain Market, Hissar, Haryana.

2. Kusum Singhal w/o Mr. Basant Kumar, aged about 47

years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar, Haryana.

3. M/s DM & Sons., through sole proprietor Mr. Basant

Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged about 51 years,

having registered office at Shop No. 16-A, New

Grain Market, Hissar, Haryana.

4. M/s Dawarka Dass Mahabir Parshad, through sole

proprietor Mr. Sant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad,

aged about 52 years, having registered office at

Shop No. 16, New Model Anaj Mandi, Hissar,

Haryana.

5. M/S DM Industries, through its partner Mr. Sant

Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged about 52 years,

having registered office at Jhansal Road, 7 KM

Stone, 16 AMS, Tehsil Bhadra, Nohar, Distt.

Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

6. Mr. Basant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged about

51 years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.
7. Mr. Saubhagya Singhal s/o Sh. Sant Kumar, aged

about 29 Years, r/o 16, New Grain Market, Hissar,

Haryana.

8. Mr. Sant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged about 52

years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar, Haryana.

9. Mr. Mahabir Parshad s/o Mr. Dwarka Dass(now

deceased) through his legal heirs:-

(I) Mr. Basant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged

about 51 years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

(II) Mr. Sant Kumar s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged

about 52 years, r/o 1830, Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

(III)Mrs. Kanta Bansal w/o SK Bansal, aged about

60 years, r/o #590, Sector -14, Hissar.

(IV)Mrs. Parul Aggarwal w/o Harish Aggarwal, aged

about 46 years r/o Allo Mandi, Kanpur, Uttar

Pradesh.

(V) Mrs. Lalita Goyal w/o Late Sh. Sita Ram Goyal,

aged about 40 years r/o Shiv Colony, Adampur,

Hissar.

…Applicants

VERSUS

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., through Authorized

Officer, Ground Floor Kamala Palace, Plot No. 57,

Red Square Market, Kamla Nagar, Hissar, Haryana.


2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., through Authorized

Officer, 27 BKC, C 27, G Block, Bandra Kurla

Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

…Respondents

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 17, 29, OF THE

SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF

FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF

SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002.

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -

DETAILS OF APPLICATION: -

1. Particular of the applicant: -

1. a.) Name of the 1. Mrs. Suman Singhal w/o

Applicant: Mr. Sant Kumar

2. Mrs. Kusum Singhal w/o

Mr. Basant Kumar

3. M/s DM & Sons., through

sole proprietor Mr.

Basant Kumar s/o Mahabir

Parshad

4. M/s Dawarka Dass Mahabir

Parshad, through sole

proprietor Mr. Sant

Kumar s/o Mahabir

Parshad

5. M/S DM Industries ,

through its partner Mr.


Sant Kumar s/o Mahabir

Parshad

6. Mr. Basant Kumar s/o

Mahabir Parshad

7. Mr. Saubhagya Singhal s/o

Sh. Sant Kumar

8. Mr. Sant Kumar s/o

Mahabir Parshad

9. Mr. Mahabir Parshad s/o

Mr. Dwarka Dass(now

deceased) through his

legal heirs:-

(I) Mr. Basant Kumar s/o

Mahabir Parshad

(II) Mr. Sant Kumar s/o

Mahabir Parshad (III)Mrs.

Kanta Bansal w/o SK

Bansal.

(IV)Mrs. Parul Aggarwal

w/o Harish Aggarwal.

(V) Mrs. Lalita Goyal w/o

Late Sh. Sita Ram Goyal.

b.) Address of 1. Mrs. Suman Singhal w/o

the Applicant Mr. Sant Kumar aged about

50 years, r/o Shop No.

16, Ward No. -2, Sirsa

Road, New Grain Market,


Hissar, Haryana.

2. Kusum Singhal w/o Mr.

Basant Kumar, aged about

47 years, r/o 1830,

Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

3. M/s DM & Sons., through

sole proprietor Mr.

Basant Kumar s/o Mahabir

Parshad, aged about 51

years, having registered

office at Shop No. 16-A,

New Grain Market, Hissar,

Haryana.

4. M/s Dawarka Dass Mahabir

Parshad, through sole

proprietor Mr. Sant Kumar

s/o Mahabir Parshad, aged

about 52 years, having

registered office at Shop

No. 16, New Model Anaj

Mandi, Hissar, Haryana.

5. M/S DM Industries,

through its partner Mr.

Sant Kumar s/o Mahabir

Parshad, aged about 52

years, having registered

office at Jhansal Road, 7


KM Stone, 16 AMS, Tehsil

Bhadra, Nohar, Distt.

Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

6. Mr. Basant Kumar s/o

Mahabir Parshad, aged

about 51 years, r/o 1830,

Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

7. Mr. Saubhagya Singhal s/o

Sh. Sant Kumar, aged

about 29 Years, r/o 16,

New Grain Market, Hissar,

Haryana.

8. Mr. Sant Kumar s/o

Mahabir Parshad, aged

about 52 years, r/o 1830,

Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

9. Mr. Mahabir Parshad s/o

Mr. Dwarka Dass(now

deceased) through his

legal heirs:-

(I) Mr. Basant Kumar s/o

Mahabir Parshad, aged

about 51 years, r/o 1830,

Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

(II) Mr. Sant Kumar s/o


Mahabir Parshad, aged

about 52 years, r/o 1830,

Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana.

(III)Mrs. Kanta Bansal

w/o SK Bansal, aged about

60 years, r/o #590,

Sector -14, Hissar.

(IV)Mrs. Parul Aggarwal

w/o Harish Aggarwal, aged

about 46 years r/o Allo

Mandi, Kanpur, Uttar

Pradesh.

(V) Mrs. Lalita Goyal w/o

Late Sh. Sita Ram Goyal,

aged about 40 years r/o

Shiv Colony, Adampur,

Hissar.

c.) Address for As above

the service of

all Notices

2. Particulars of defendants:

1. a.) Name of the 1. Kotak Mahindra Bank

defendants Ltd., through

Authorized Officer,

Ground Floor Kamala


Palace, Plot No. 57,

Red Square Market,

Kamla Nagar, Hissar,

Haryana.

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank

Ltd., through

Authorized Officer, 27

BKC, C 27, G Block,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East, Mumbai,

Maharashtra.

b.) Address for 1. Kotak Mahindra Bank

Service Ltd., through

Authorized Officer,

Ground Floor Kamala

Palace, Plot No. 57,

Red Square Market,

Kamla Nagar, Hissar,

Haryana.

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank

Ltd., through

Authorized Officer, 27

BKC, C 27, G Block,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East, Mumbai,

Maharashtra.

c.) Address for 1. Kotak Mahindra Bank

the service of all Ltd., through


Notices Authorized Officer,

Ground Floor Kamala

Palace, Plot No. 57,

Red Square Market,

Kamla Nagar, Hissar,

Haryana.

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank

Ltd., through

Authorized Officer, 27

BKC, C 27, G Block,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra East, Mumbai,

Maharashtra.

3. JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL

The Applicant declare that the matter under SA is

within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal the properties

against which the respondent initiated proceeding under

the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and

which is the subject matter of the present SA, owned by

Applicants are situated at Hissar, which is well within

the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon`ble Tribunal.

4. LIMITATION:

The Applicant further declares that the Application is

within limitation as prescribed under the

Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and


Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘said Act’) as the notice under

section 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction

of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest, Act 2002 (SARFEASI Act) read with Rule 9 of

the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules on 07.01.2020

and thus, the present S.A. is being filed well within

limitation.

5. That the brief facts of the case are as under:-

i) That the applicant no. 1 – Suman Singhal-

Borrower , alongwith other applicants –

Guarantor, have approached Respondent No. 1,

which is local branch of Respondent no. -2

Bank- Kotak Mahindra Bank, for credit

facilities by way financial assistance against

various assets creating security interest in

favor of the respondent Bank. The details of

credit facilities, as per the Section 13(2)

notice, is as follows:-

Sr. Name of Facility Amount

No. Sanctioned

1. Overdraft Account No. 30,00,000.00/-

0012374373(ODHPN)
The details of the property mortgaged to

Respondent against the sanctioned credit

facilities are as follows:-

Sr. Details of Property

No.

1. Non-Agriculture immovable commercial-

cum-residential property, being

constructed on G+ 1st Floor of Shop No.

16, bearing M.C. Property Id No.

14C223U36, admeasuring area, 188.88 Sq.

Yards, Situated at New Grain Market,

Hissar, Haryana. The property owned by

Late Mahabir Parshad.

2. Non-Agriculture immovable property being

southern side of plot no. 185, bearing

M.C. Property Id No. 48C651U432,

admeasuring area, 124.66 Sq. Yards,

Situated at Mohalla Rampura, Hissar,

Haryana. The property owned by Basant

Kumar.

ii) That as per notice under section 13 (2) of the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act, 2002 dated 31.10.2019, the applicants are


liable to pay the due amount to the tune of

Rs. 30,43,750.88/- , as on 30.09.2019.

iii) That the applicant have always paid the EMI as

per the schedule provided by the bank from

2016 to 2019. That in year 2019, due to the

unavoidable circumstances, the applicants

suffered huge losses in their business and due

to this reason, the applicants could not be

able to repay the installments regularly.

iv) That the account of the applicant no. 1 was

declared NPA on 28.09.2019. Thereafter, the

applicants have received notice under section

13 (2) of the Securitization & Reconstruction

of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 on 31.10.2019.

Copy of the notice under section 13 (2) of the

Securitization Act, is attached herewith as

Annexure A-1.

v) That thereafter, the applicants received

possession notice dated 07.01.2020 by the

respondent bank. Copy of the possession notice

dated 07.01.2020 issued u/s 13 (4) of the

SARFEASI Act are attached herewith as Annexure

A-2.

6. That the impugned notices under section 13 (2),

under section 13 (4) of the Securitization Act


(Annexure A-1 and A-2) issued by the respondent

are wrong, illegal and arbitrary manner and

against the SARFEASI Act and Rules. The same is

liable to be set aside on the following grounds:-

i) That the respondents are adamant to take the

possession the shop & residential house of the

applicants. The applicants went to the

respondents for issuance of payment schedule,

dues outstanding and statement of accounts of

his loan account but the respondents has not

provided the same to the applicants, the

reasons best known to them.

ii) That the applicants were regularly making

payments in their account and were also

running their account in a proper manner and

as per the financial discipline of the

respondent. However, due to the business

failure the above accounts became irregular

and ultimately the accounts became NPA.

iii) That the officials of the respondent continued

to behave like the feudal lords of the

medieval era, whereby having no consideration

for the rule of law prevailing in the nation

and with their malafide, evil, malevolent and

wicked intentions to deprive the applicants of


their property acted in unholy haste and in

most arbitrary and illegal manner, took

further steps and measures against the

property of the applicants, even without

waiting for a period of time granted by

themselves to expire and further without

granting time as available to the applicant

under the law.

iv) That as per Securitization & Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act 2002 the rights of ‘Secured

Creditor’ can be exercised only by an officer

authorized in this behalf and in such manner

as prescribed in the rules. The word

prescribed as defined under Section 2(s) of

the Act means:

“Prescribed by rules made under the Act”.

And the rule 2(a) prescribes “Authorized

Officer” as specified by the Board of

Directors or Board of Trustees of the ‘Secured

Creditor’. Since the subjected notice has not

been served by an authorized officer,

specified by the Board of Directors /Trustees,

as required under the provision / rules of the

Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial

Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act,


2002, as such the impugned notices under

section 13 (2), under section 13 (4) of the

Securitization Act and Notice under Rule 4

[(2A)]of the SARFEASI Act 2002 (as amended)

(Annexure A-1, A—3 and A-4) are not

sustainable and are liable to be quashed/set

aside.

v) That as per provisions of Securitization &

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, the

respondents was duty bound to furnish details

of the amount payable by the borrower and the

respondent has failed to furnish the complete

details /account statement/ corroborating

documents with respect to alleged liabilities,

which have been mentioned in the said notice.

More so, the respondent bank has failed to

disclose how the respondent has arrived at the

alleged liabilities. However, as per the

rules/ provisions, the respondent has to

supply complete details with respect to the

outstanding dues, which have been claimed by

the respondent and are to be repaid within

stipulated period. In the absence of these

documents, exact liability of the notice

cannot be ascertained and without ascertaining


the exact liability. It is also relevant and

pertinent to mention here that the banking

sector is governed by the guidelines and

provisions /circular, issued from time to time

by the Reserve Respondents of India, with

respect to chargeable rate of interest from

the borrower. As such, the respondent was

legally bound to supply the said circulars/

guidelines etc. to the applicants.

vi) The respondent bank rather than acting in the

manner of a financial institution, is acting

like the village “Sahukars” whom the country

saw in the pre-independence era. The

respondent cannot derive benefit of its own

wrongs.

vii) That the action of the Respondent is contrary

to law, justice, equity, fair play and good

conscience the said action on the part of the

respondent is illegal. There are blatant

violations of the mandatory Rules framed under

the Act, as also the violations of the

principles of natural justice.

viii)That it is nothing-vindictive approach on the

part of the respondent and without any sense

of humanitarian grounds or pragmatism and


glaring violation of the mandatory guidelines

of RBI.

ix) That the respondent bank is required in law to

give separate figures of ‘Principal’,

‘Interest’ and `Penalties’ so as to enable the

applicant to know the actual dues and in the

absence thereof no liability can be fastened

on the applicants. The interest even has not

charged as per guidelines of the Hon`ble

Supreme Court of India in the matter of C.B.I.

Versus Ravindra.

x) The Respondents being a Financial Institution

should act in the interest of general public.

The borrowers who have bonafide intention to

pay should be treated sympathetically and be

granted some time to repay the dues. But the

respondent bank in complete violation of the

provisions of the Act has chosen to wrongly

take action under the Act by violating its

provisions and to harass the borrowers.

xi) That the respondent bank failed to follow any

of the provisions of the act and proceed

further without following the procedure or in

contravention of procedure enumerated in the

act and it is a well settled law that

procedure prescribed in law to be followed


strictly. In a recent decision by Division

Bench of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in case

Swastik Agency versus State Bank of India

reported as 2009(1) DRTC page 520 held that :-

“38. When the statute provides for a

particular procedure, the authority has

to follow the same and cannot be

permitted to act in contravention of the

same. It has been hitherto uncontroverted

legal position that, where a statute

requires to do certain thing in certain

way, the thing must be done in that way

or not at all. Other methods or mode of

performance are impliedly and necessarily

forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal

proposition is based on legal

maxim.”Expressio unius est exclusion

alterius” meaning thereby that if a

statute provides for a things to be done

in a particular, manner, than it has to

be done in that manner and in no other

manner and following other course is not

permissible.

39. It is settled proposition of law

that if initial action is not in

consonance with law, the subsequent

proceedings would not sanctify the same.

In such a fact situation, the legal maxim


“sublator fundamento cedit opus” is

applicable, meaning thereby in a case a

foundation is removed the superstructure

falls.”

So the respondent bank without following

the procedure as per act proceeded

further in contravention of provisions of

the act. On this ground alone notices are

required to be quashed.

xii) That the respondent bank has imposed

unnecessary charges and even charged

exorbitant rates of interest and various other

charges which have exaggerated the claim of

the respondents including the capitalization

of the penal interest. The respondent bank

even failed to explain the break-up of the

amount including the principal amount and the

alleged interest accrued upon and also the

rate of interest.

xiii)That at present, the value of the 2

properties in question is about Property I-

Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and Rs. 75,000/- , whereas,

outstanding amount is only Rs. 30,43,750.88/-

but the respondent bank is adamant to take

possession of the property at a throw away

prices and due to this act and conduct, the

applicants will be out of their business ,


residential house and the applicants will not

be able to survive in future.

xv) That the applicants has time and again

expressed their desire to settle the accounts

with the Respondent Bank and the applicants

are willing to settle the matter by repaying

the amount in long installments as settled

between the parties.

xvi) That the authorized officer has intentionally

contravened the provisions of the Act and the

Rules framed thereunder and has thus, rendered

himself liable to be proceeded against for the

offence contemplated under section 29 of the

Act. The respondents are not entitled to

invoke the provision of the SARFAESI Act. The

respondents are not entitled to invoke the

provisions of the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

against the applicant and all the steps taken

by the respondents are illegal, beyond

jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.

7. Relief Sought:

In view of the facts and grounds mentioned

above, the Applicant, pray for the following

reliefs:
a] To set aside the impugned notices under

section 13 (2), under section 13 (4) of the

Securitization Act (Annexure A-1 and A-2)

issued by the respondent to the

applicants.

b] The Respondents or its agents/ attorney

etc. be directed not to take the illegal

possession of the residential house of the

applicant contrary to Securitization &

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

c) Direction to the respondents to recover the

loan amount after making settlement with

the applicant to recover his outstanding

dues against the residential house of the

applicant.

d] Any other order, as may be found

appropriate and necessary in the nature and

circumstances of this case and in the

interest of natural justice, equity and

fair play be passed in favour of the

Applicant and against the respondent with

costs.

e] The Applicant may also be awarded the costs

of this Application i.e. Rs.55,000/-


8. INTERIM RELIEF

Pending final decision of the Application, the

Applicant seek issue of the following interim

reliefs /orders:-

a] During the pendency of the Application,

further proceedings or any other action under

the Securitisation Act on the basis of

impugned notices under section 13 (2), under

section 13 (4) of the Securitization Act

(Annexure A-1 and A-2) issued by the

respondent to the applicants, may kindly be

stayed.

b] During the pendency of the Application, the

Respondents and its agents/attorney etc. be

directed not to take the illegal possession

of the properties of the applicant.

c] During the pendency of the Application, the

respondent bank be restrained from initiating

any proceedings under the act, in the

interest of justice.

d] Any other order, as may be found appropriate

and necessary in the nature and circumstances

of this case and in the interest of natural

justice, equity and fair play be passed in


favour of the Applicant and against the

respondents with costs.

9. MATTER NOT PENDING BEFORE ANY OTHER COURTS ETC:-

The Applicant further declares that the matter

regarding which this Application has been made is not

pending before any other Court of law or with any

authority or any other Tribunal.

10. PARTICULARS OF RESPONDENTS DRAFT/POSTAL ORDER IN

RESPECT OF FEE PAID IN TERMS OF RULES:-

(1) Name of the Respondents of which drawn: -

(2) Demand Draft Number: -

DEMAND DRAFT NO.:

AMOUNT :Rs.

11. DETAILS OF INDEX:

The index in duplicate showing the details of the

documents to be relied upon is enclosed herewith.

12. LIST OF ENCLOSURES:


As per index. The index of Application along with

details of the documents is annexed with the

application complete in all respects.

Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 14.01.2020 Applicant

THROUGH COUNSEL

(VAIBHAV JAIN)

ADVOCATE

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

VERIFICATION:-

Verified that the contents of this Appeal from para


No 1 to para 12 are true and correct to my knowledge
and beliefs. No part of it is false and nothing
material has been kept concealed therefrom. The legal
averments are as per the advice sought from the
counsel.

Place: Chandigarh
Dated: 14.01.2020 Applicant
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL -II,

AT CHANDIGARH

S.A.___________OF 2020

Kusum Singhal and others.

…Applicants

VERSUS

Kotak Mahindra Bank and Another.


…Respondents

AFFIDAVIT OF MR. SANT KUMAR S/O MAHABIR PARSHAD,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O # 16, NEW GRAIN MARKET,

HISSAR, HARYANA.

I, the above named Deponent do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under:-

1) That the narration made in the application are

true and correct and are reiterated over here as

such, the same may kindly be read as a part and

parcel of this affidavit.

2) That in view of the narration made in the

application, the respondent be restrained


/prohibited from initiating action under the act

against the Applicant.

Place: Chandigarh.

Dated: Deponent

Verification:

Verified that the contents of my above

affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no

part of it is false or incorrect and nothing has been

kept concealed there from.

Place: Chandigarh.

Dated: Deponent

Оценить