Allowed

A.O.,Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi

DRAT19 Mar 2025REGULAR APPEAL/133/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal filed by a bank against a DRT order that had allowed a borrower's remand application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the rejected demand notice date was a mere clerical error and the measures under the Act were properly followed.

What did the court decide?

The order of Learned Presiding Officer allowing the Securitisation Application (SA 15/2019) is set aside. The appeal is allowed and SA 15/2019 is dismissed with costs to the Appellant.

A.O.,Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the19^th March, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

RA(SA) 133/2019

¶6

(S.A No. 15/2019 on the file of DRT-I, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

The Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Chennai Regional Office, No. 45, Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.

¶9

…… Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

Mrs. B. Vijayalakshmi, W/o Mr. C. K. Murali, No. 3/9, Thiru Nagar 4^th Street, Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026.

¶12

P.P Balamurugan, S/o S.P. Patturaja, 259, P.H. Road, Aminjakarai, Chennai.

¶13

……Respondents

¶14

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. Anil Relwani Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Mr. K.N.Natarajan

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Appeal is filed against the order passed by Learned Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chennai in SA 15/2019, on 26.08.2019.

¶18

The aforesaid SA 15/2019 was filed by the borrower, M/s. B. Vijaylakshmi, the Applicant, challenging the order

¶19

passed by Learned CMM in Crl. M P. No. 3751/2018 dated 02.11.2018. After perusal of records and hearing the Counsels appearing for the parties, Learned Presiding Officer chose to allow the Application setting at naught the proceedings initiated under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, 2002. The reasons assigned for allowing this Application are follows:-

¶20

i. Demand Notice dated 02.07.2017 had never been served on the borrower;

¶21

¶22

ii. Affidavit filed in support of the Petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, not filed.

¶23

iii. Learned CMM referred the Demand Notice dated 02.07.2017 and held that it was duly served on the borrower; and

¶24

iv. The borrower had specifically pleaded that she did not receive Demand Notice dated 02.07.2017. There is no evidence produced to show the service of Demand Notice dated 02.07.2017.

¶25

On these reasons, Learned Presiding Officer found that proper measures had not been taken in conformity with the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules made there under, and thus, allowed the Securitisation Application in SA 15/2019.

¶26

¶27

Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank submitted that the Appellant had produced all relevant records as required under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, along with Petition. The Demand Notice was dated 10.07.2017. This Demand Notice along with acknowledgement cards showing service of Demand Notice had been produced before Learned CMM. All other relevant documents had also been produced. Only after perusal of records produced, Learned CMM allowed the Application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The date of Demand Notice was wrongly typed as 02.07.2017 instead of 10.07.2017, by mistake in the order passed by Learned CMM. The measures under SARFAESI Act, 2002 had been taken by scrupulously following the mandatory requirements, and thus, prayed for setting aside the impugned Order by allowing this Appeal.

¶28

There is no representation for 1^st Respondent despite service of Notice on the 1^st Respondent.

¶29

¶30

Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, Auction

¶31

Purchaser adopted the arguments of Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank. He further submitted that he is the successful bidder in the auction. Sale Certificate was issued in his favour and Sale Certificate has been registered, and he has also taken possession of the property, therefore, nothing survives in this Appeal.

¶32

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶33

This Tribunal summoned the Petition, Affidavit along with the documents filed before Learned CMM, in the Petition filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Index shows that the Appellant Bank produced all the relevant documents starting from Sanction Letter, Demand Notice, Possession Notice, Sale Notice, Loan Documents along with acknowledgement cards for service of Demand Notice, Possession Notice and Sale Notice, affixture and publication of Possession Notice and Sale Notice. As many

¶34

¶35

as 24 documents were produced before Learned CMM. As rightly pointed out by Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank that the order of Learned CMM reads the Demand Notice dated 02.07.2017 instead of 10.07.2017. It was only a clerical, arithmetic and typographical error. When it was brought to the notice of Learned Presiding Officer that Demand Notice was dated 10.07.2017, Learned Presiding ought not to have entertained the plea of borrower that the Demand Notice was dated 02.07.2017 and it had not been served on her.

¶36

Order under Section 14 of SARFAEESI Act, 2002 was passed by Learned CMM after perusal of relevant records, and on merits, and in accordance with law, and therefore, setting aside the order of Learned CMM by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai, is not on the basis of evidence produced and made available.

¶37

¶38

In this view of the matter, the order of Learned

¶39

Presiding Office is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. This Appeal is allowed and SA 15/2019 is dismissed.

¶40

In the result, the Appeal in RA (SA) 133/2019 is allowed and SA No. 15/2019 is dismissed with costs of the Appellant Bank. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶41

(Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open Court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 19^th March, 2025)

¶42

[ Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON

¶43

A.O.,Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.O.,Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi

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

Mm Traders versus Idbi Bank

A Prabhakar Reddy versus Idbi Bank

P Soundarajan versus a O Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Govindraj Rao H versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Karnataka Bank Limited versus H Govindraj Rao

Shri Narendra Kumar Lodha versus Shri.H.Govindaraj Rao