Disposed

S Saravana Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

DRAT6 Jun 2023MISC APPEAL/1/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim order regarding appellate proceedings against an interim attachment direction, the Tribunal directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) to dispose of the main appeal within three months and the Bank to file its counter affidavit within one month.

What did the court decide?

Main appeal to be decided within 3 months; Bank to file counter within 1 month; transfer of pre-deposit to loan account; maintenance of status quo.

S Saravana Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 6^th of June, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶4

MA (SA) 1/2023

¶5

[IA 2169/2021 in SA 622/2021 on the file of DRT, Madurai]

¶6

Between

¶7

S. Saravana Kumar, Proprietor M/s. Sri Siva Ganesh Traders, 137 A/2, S. No. 229/2, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 625 009.

¶8

Tin No. 33344822890 PAN No. BRIPS 71Q.

¶9

……Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Madurai – Munichalai Branch, 214 C, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai – 625 009.

¶12

The Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Home Finance AVE, Mariya Complex, 1^st Floor, Near Bishop House, Tanjore - 613 055.

¶13

….. Respondents

¶14

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. M. Ebenezer Prince, Counsel for R2 : Mr. Suresh

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Appeal is preferred against Order dated

¶18

25.02.2022 in IA 2169/2021 in SA 622/2021, wherein Tribunal below directed Appellant herein to deposit a sum of Rs.1 Crore, in two instalments, for granting interim relief. Aggrieved by said Order, present Appeal is preferred.

¶19

Heard both sides.

¶20

Advocate for Appellant submitted that Appellant is a guarantor, and property is a residential property, and Appellant paid a sum of Rs.35 Lakhs before Tribunal below, but could not pay remaining amount. He further submitted, in this Tribunal, Appellant deposited Rs.44,66,805/towards pre deposit for entertaining the Appeal. He submitted, almost Rs.80 Lakhs is paid out of Rs.1 Crore, taking this into consideration, said amount may be accepted for the purpose of Interim Order.

¶21

¶22

On the other hand, Advocate for Bank opposed and submitted that Order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, is obtained, and as SA is filed and Tribunal below granted conditional Order, and thereafter, Appellant filed this Appeal, and because of pendency of proceedings, Bank has not proceeded further. It is further submitted, main SA is still pending.

¶23

After hearing both sides, when it is suggested to both sides to go along with main SA, in which rights of both parties can be determined, both Advocates agreed to cooperate with Tribunal below, but the only apprehension expressed is that there is no regular Presiding Officer for DRT, Madurai, and only Officer in-charge, is taking up cases. Considering the same, I deem it appropriate to fix some time limit for disposal of main SA in order to protect the interest of both the parties.

¶24

¶25

During the course of arguments, Advocate for Appellant submitted that Appellant has no objection even to transfer pre deposit amount into the loan account. Considering the same, it is ordered that, Tribunal below (Presiding Officer, in- charge) shall decide SA 622/2021 on merits, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, without being influenced by any of observations made herein and also any of findings recorded in impugned Order dated 25.02.2022. It is further clarified that Bank shall file its Counter to main SA within one month from now, so that main SA can be taken up and be decided within stipulated time.

¶26

Both parties shall co-operate with Tribunal below in disposal of SA 622/2021 within the time stipulated and both parties shall maintain status quo till disposal of SA 622/2021. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶27

¶28

Registry is directed to transfer pre deposit amount,

¶29

along with accrued interest, if any, to the Respondent Bank

¶30

to be credited to the loan account of Appellant.

¶31

Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 6^th of June, 2023]

¶32

[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar]

¶33

CHAIRPERSON

¶34

S Saravana Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Saravana Kumar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Green Land Marketing Agencies versus Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd.

Reji M P versus Karur Vysya Bank

Mrs.I.Kumari versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

S Saravana Kumar versus Icici Bank Limited

S R Raja versus Indian Bank and Ors.

N Radhakrishnan versus Union Bank