AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appeal called several times but none appeared on behalf of the appellants. In these circumstances, the appeal is considered on merit.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 reflects that the appellants have challenged the entire SARFAESI action initiated by the respondent no.1 and made prayer for interim relief.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the appellants being the borrowers have opted for insurance against the loan amount and could pay the loan amount till January, 2024. The appellant requested the insurance company to settle with the respondent no.1 regarding the payment of loan amount and the said prayed was rejected. It was prayed that the respondent be restrained from taking physical possession of the property in question on 02.12.2024 at 12:00 p.m.
The said prayer was declined by the DRT-II, Delhi vide impugned order dated 02.12.2024. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 is reproduced as under:
8.From perusal of the liable contention of the parties, it is clear that the main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was insured with the Insurance Company. After taking the loan the applicant was diagnosed for cancer. So, he has made a claim for the cost of the treatment which, is rejected by the insurance company. He has filed a claim before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, which is pending adjudication. In such circumstance the respondent FI may be restrained from taking the possession of the property. Weather the claim of the applicant has been rightly rejected or wrongly rejected is to be decided by the competent form merely because the claim has not been paid by the applicant can not be permitted to make default in repayment of the loan. Admittedly, the applicant has failed to maintain the financial discipline and therefore, the account of the applicant has been declared as NPA. In such circumstances, no prime facie case is made only in favor of the applicant and the interim prayer of the applicant is liable to be dismissed.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 02.12.2024 reflects that the DRT-II, Delhi has considered the relevant facts and came to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to maintain the financial discipline as such the account was declared as NPA. No illegality could be pointed out by the appellants in the action taken by the respondent under the SARFAESI measures against the appellants.
In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order dated 02.12.2024 which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. After considering all facts on merit, the present appeal is dismissed.