Dismissed

M S Suburaman v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRAT22 Apr 2024REGULAR APPEAL/116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant filed an application seeking a waiver of the statutory deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Tribunal dismissed the application and rejected the appeal as the Appellant failed to comply with the deposit requirement and did not cite any provision empowering the Tribunal to order a transfer of funds.

What did the court decide?

Application IS 95/2023 is dismissed with costs; Appeal A.IR (SA):42/2023 is rejected.

M S Suburaman versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

DATED THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CHAIRPERSON

IA 95/2023

A.IR (SA):42/2023

( SA 668/2021 on the file of DRT Coimbatore)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

Mr. M.S. Suburaman

¶10

S/o Sundarapandi, Proprietor,

¶11

M/s. Hotel Sri Saravana Bhawan, S.F. No.153/4A2, NH – 47 Main Road, Moongilpalayam, Vijayamangalam, Erode – 638 056.

¶12

…Petitioner/Appellant

¶13

¶14

The Authorised Officer,

¶15

M/s. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.,

¶16

Perumanallur Branch,

¶17

No.3/40A, Old NH – 47,Opp. to State Bank of India,

¶18

Perumanallur – 641 666.

¶19

Mr. Prabakaran,

¶20

No. 7/110, East Garden, Vettuvappalayam, Mangalam, Tirupur – 641 663.

¶21

Mr. P. Arulselvam, No. 1 Khathi Colony,

¶22

2^nd Street, Karuvampalayam,Tirupur – 641 604.

¶23

… Respondent

¶24

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. Aiyar & Dolia Counsel for R1 : Mr. S. Sethuraman Counsel for R2 and R3 : K Venkateswaran

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶28

In spite of granting ample opportunity to get the money transferred from DRT, Coimbatore, to this Tribunal, to comply with condition under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, Petitioner/Appellant failed to avail said opportunity.

¶29

Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant sought further time and submitted that, an Application is filed before this Tribunal to give a direction to DRT, Coimbatore, to transfer that amount. When it is put to Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant under what provision said Application is filed, he represented that the Application is filed under inherent power provided to this Tribunal, and when it is asked to show the provision under which the

¶30

inherent power is provided, Advocate for

¶31

¶32

Petitioner/Appellant failed to show any such provision, and repeatedly submitted, a direction may be given to DRT, Coimbatore, to transfer the amount lying with DRT, Coimbatore, to this Tribunal. I am not inclined to consider said request. When there is no provision as such, question of entertaining Application does not arise. Further, this Tribunal is not a collecting agent for Borrower. It is for the Borrower to deposit the money under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, and it is not for this Tribunal to collect money lying elsewhere. Therefore, Application IA 95/2023 (waiver) is dismissed with costs. Consequently Appeal A.IR (SA):42/2023 is rejected. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶33

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 22^nd April, 2024]

¶34

[Justice S. Ravi Kumar]

¶35

CHAIRPERSON

¶36

¶37

M S Suburaman v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Suburaman v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Joy Paul versus South Indian Bank and Another

B.a.Varadarajachar versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

selvakumari prabhakaran versus reliance home finance limited

M/s. Ariff versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Anitha versus M S Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Bhojwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & o