Dismissed

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. K.Rajendran

DRAT9 Apr 2025REGULAR APPEAL/109/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT Appeals Bench affirmed the lower tribunal's order which set aside a possession notice due to the Appellant Bank's failure to prove publication in an English newspaper. The Tribunal upheld the violation of Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, rejecting the bank's relief as the legal requirement was mandatory.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai was confirmed.

Oriental Bank of Commerce versus K.Rajendran — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

RA(SA) 109/2013

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 9^th day of April, 2025

¶4

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶5

RA(SA) 109/2013

¶6

(arising out of SA 94/2010 on the file of DRT, Madurai)

¶7

Between The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank No.492, Jawahar Bazar, Karur 636 001.

¶8

…..Appellant Bank

¶9

And Mr. K. Rajendran, Proprietor, M/s PSG Impex, Santhosh House, No.10, Gowripuram Extension, Opp: Anna Nagar Water Tank Karur 639 002.

¶10

…..Respondent Counsel for Appellant Bank : M/s M.L. Ganesh & Co. Counsel for Respondent : Shri P. Tamilavel

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This appeal is filed under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act against the order passed

¶13

by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai passed in SA 94/2010 dated

28.6.2013.

RA(SA) 109/2013

Respondent filed the aforesaid SA challenging the Possession Notice dated 6.5.2010 issued under the SARFAESI Act. After contest, this application was allowed primarily on the ground that Possession Notice published in English Newspaper was not produced before the Tribunal below. This is in violation of Rule 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶18

Learned Counsel for appellant bank submitted that order relates to publication effected in Tamil version of newspaper i.e., in ‘Dinamani’ on 7.5.2010. It is his further submission that newspapers, Dinamani and Indian Express are sister concerns and they offer package in the matter of publication in both Tamil and English version of newspaper. Accordingly, publication was effected in both Dinamani and New Indian Express newspapers. It is further submitted that despite hectic efforts made by the appellant bank for getting a copy of the publication effected in English Newspaper viz. New Indian Express from the archive of Indian Express, appellant bank could not succeed in its efforts. Reason is publication had been effected on 7.5.2010, which is more than 14 years and almost close to 15 years back from now. Therefore, copy of publication in English daily in New Indian Express could not be secured.

¶19

¶20

RA(SA) 109/2013

¶21

Learned Counsel further invited the attention of this Tribunal to draw inference that publication in both English and Tamil newspapers is made taking note of the fact that publication was made in Dinamani Tamil newspaper. That apart, it is his submission that sale was already over and sale certificate has been issued and registered. In the said circumstances, Learned Counsel prayed this Tribunal to set aside the order of Ld. Presiding Officer and allow this appeal.

¶22

In reply, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that when there is a violation of mandatory provision of Rule 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in giving wide publicity of possession to be taken in both English and Tamil newspapers and Learned Presiding Officer rightly found that reason for setting aside the measures taken for possession, that order cannot be set aside easily. Even in this appeal, English version of newspaper containing the possession notice was not produced before this Tribunal. It is his further submission that possession is still with the respondent and that respondent has also filed TSA No.442/2019 challenging the sale on the file of DRT, Coimbatore,

¶23

which is pending. Thus contending, he prayed the Tribunal to dismiss

this appeal.

RA(SA) 109/2013

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶28

As already narrated above, the main ground on which SA was allowed is no proof for publishing the possession notice in English Newspaper was produced before the Tribunal below.

¶29

Rule 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 reads follows:

¶30

“The possession notice as referred to in sub-rule (1) shall also be published in two leading newspaper, one in vernacular language having sufficient circulation in that locality, by the authorized officer”

¶31

This rule mandates publication of possession notice in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language and the other in English language having sufficient circulation in the locality by the Authorised Officer. Admittedly, Tamil version of possession notice published in Dinamani was produced before the Tribunal below and also before this Tribunal. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for appellant bank that despite sincere and earnest attempt made to get a copy of English version of paper i.e. New Indian Express in which possession notice was

¶32

published, bank was not able to get, due to passage of time. Learned

¶33

Counsel for the appellant is true and earnest in making his submission

¶34

that this Tribunal cannot bypass the legal requirement. When legal

¶35

¶36

RA(SA) 109/2013

¶37

requirement for effecting publication of possession notice is not

¶38

effected in two leading newspapers, of which, one in English language and the other in vernacular language or effected, but not produced before the Tribunal and when it was partly complied by publishing in vernacular language alone, certainly, there is a violation of mandatory provision of Rule 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶39

In the said circumstances, this Tribunal has no other alternative but to confirm the order passed by DRT in SA No.94/2010.

¶40

In this view of the matter, order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai passed in SA 94/2010 on 28.6.2013 is confirmed and Appeal

¶41

RA(SA) 109/2013 is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

¶42

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶43

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 9^th Day of April, 2025)

¶44

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶45

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. K.Rajendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. K.Rajendran

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

Mr Vijayabhaskar R versus State Bank of India

Shine P Jacobs versus South Indian Bank

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank

Indian overseas Bank versus Smt K.Uma & Anr.

K Neela Wife of Late K Govindasamy Naidu versus Narayana Mukunda Reddy

V Kamaraj versus Sri Ram Finance Ltd.