Allowed

State Bank of India v. R KPoovannan

DRAT20 Jun 2025REGULAR APPEAL/58/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by State Bank of India against the order dismissing their Securitization Application (SA) in SA 76/2021. The Tribunal set aside the lower court's order as non-reasoned and devoid of application of mind, directing the trial court to consider the SA on merits in the presence of parties.

What did the court decide?

Order of Learned Presiding Officer dated 30.3.2022 in SA No. 76/2021 set aside; direction to take SA on file, issue notice and dispose on merits.

State Bank of India versus R KPoovannan — DRAT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RA (SA) 58/2022

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 20^th day of June, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

RA(SA) 58/2022

¶6

(arising out of SA 76/2021 on the file of DRT-III,Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

1. The Chief Manager (Authorised Officer), State Bank of India, ARM Branch - 70674, No.44, Eldams Road, 1^st Floor, Teyampet, Chennai 600 018.

¶9

2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Anna Salai Branch, Chennai 600 002.

¶10

…..Appellants

¶11

And

¶12

R.K. Poovannan, S/o Shri R. Karunagaran, No.29, Soundarammal Street, Lakshmipuram, Chrompet, Chennai 600 044.

¶13

…..Respondent

¶14

Counsel for Appellants : M/s M/s P.N. Radhakrishnan & Co.

¶15

Respondent remained ex parte.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

against the order dated 30.3.2022 passed in SA 76/2021 passed by the

¶19

Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai i.e. challenging the true

¶20

extract of the proceedings dated 30.3.2022.

¶21

¶22

RA (SA) 58/2022

¶23

Learned Counsel for appellant bank submitted that without giving an opportunity to the appellant and despite the fact that the applicant in the SA was absent, Learned Presiding Officer allowed the SA for the reason that bank has not produced the proof of publication and affixture of demand notice. It is his further submission that what was challenged before the Tribunal in the SA was the measures taken for sale of the property. No challenge was made with regard to the measure taken for taking possession.

¶24

3. Despite service of notice, there was no representation for the respondent, therefore, respondent was set ex parte.

¶25

Considered the submission of Learned Counsel for the appellant bank and perused the records. The impugned order reads as follows:

¶26

“No representation on behalf of applicant. Junior Counsel representing counsel on record for respondent bank is present, despite attending regularly, counsel is not aware of the stage of the proceedings nor the present status of the matter.

¶27

Today matter is posted for filing proof of publication /affixture of demand notice as last chance. However, respondent bank has not filed any documents establishing their actions.

¶28

Consequently, SA is allowed. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the costs of sale notice to the borrower’s loan account. Interim stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stand vacated and all other IAs, pending if any stands closed.

¶29

With the above directions, SA stands disposed. “

¶30

From this order, it is seen that on the date of allowing the Securitization Application in SA 76/2021, there was no representation for applicant. When applicant was not present and submitted his case, it is not known how the application was allowed for the reason that junior counsel of

¶31

¶32

RA (SA) 58/2022

¶33

respondent bank was not aware of the stage of the proceedings and proof of publication / affixture of demand notice was not produced. It is a cryptic, non-reasoned order with no application of mind. Reasoning is the heart beat of any order. That is totally lacking in this order. The case of the respondent bank in the SA, as seen from the pleadings is not extracted in the order. The point for consideration was not framed and determined at all. The impugned order was passed without assigning any reason thereof. Therefore, this order deserves to be set aside.

¶34

Accordingly, the order of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai dated 30.3.2022 in SA No.76/2021 is set aside. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai directed to take up SA 76/2021 on file, issue notice to parties and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶35

In the result, Appeal RA(SA) 58/2022 is allowed with the above direction.

¶36

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶37

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 20^th Day of June, 2025)

¶38

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶39

State Bank of India v. R KPoovannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. R KPoovannan

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

State Bank of India versus Sre Bagawathi Tex and 3others

Canara Bank versus Akshaya Tex

Aditya Birla Capital Limited versus Srinivasa Garment Private Limited

Star metal Company and Anr. versus Bank Of Baroda

S. Jayasakthi versus Tamilnadu Grama Bank

Prakash Kumar C and another versus South Indian Bank