Dismissed

R Nalayni v. Canara Bank

DRT19 Nov 2022SA/102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI Application challenging a sale notice. While finding no merit in the application due to lack of procedural infirmities and suspension of sale, the Tribunal directed the applicant to repay dues in six monthly installments within six months to facilitate an amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed; applicant permitted to discharge dues in 6 monthly instalments by 30.06.2023; bank to proceed if default continues beyond 01.07.2023.

R Nalayni versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 102 of 2022 19.11.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2022

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 102 of 2022

¶7

Mrs.R.Nalayini W/o.Ulaganathan 254/3, Jothi Nagar Senthangudi Mayiladuthurai – 609 001 ….Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer

¶10

Canara Bank Mayiladuthurai Branch No.13, Muthaliyar Street Mayiladurthurai – 609 001 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. T.Sai Krishnan, R.Saravanan, A.Adhi Chakravarthy & M.Velan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Sreenivasulu & N.C.Radhakrishnan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 04.02.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 16.03.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,97,000/-

¶15

Heard the Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶16

It is the case of applicant that she was an employee of respondent bank and that she is a victim of a motivated complaint filed against her, owing to which she lost her employment. It is the further case of applicant that the present loan is a housing loan

¶17

which the borrower was discharging till about her dismissal from service. Owing to

¶18

¶19

S.A. 102 of 2022 19.11.2022

¶20

financial crisis pelt upon her, she fell due in discharge of debt and consequently could not keep up her repayment schedule. It is the further case of applicant that she is willing and ready to negotiate with respondent bank for an amicable settlement of her loan dues and is willing to discharge the same in 6 monthly instalments. It is the further case of applicant that respondent bank has mentioned in their counter that the amounts due and recoverable from applicant as of 19.05.2022 is only in a sum of Rs.7,54,976.81p, although the applicant is disputing on the said quantum of demand by respondent bank. It is also submitted that applicant would endeavour to enter into any negotiated settlement with respondent bank after due reconciliation of statement of account and then will be able to discharge the balance due and payable to respondent bank in 6 monthly instalments. In fact, Ld.Counsel appearing for applicant has today filed a memo to that effect and prayed for appropriate orders from this Tribunal. Copy of the memo is duly served on the Ld.Counsel appearing for respondent bank.

¶21

Whereas respondent bank had put up appearance and filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions, while issuing the impugned sale notice. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank has demonstrated their actions in terms of their typed set of documents, which are found to be in accordance to law. Respondent bank has not raised any objections to the memo filed on behalf of applicant seeking to discharge the balance amounts due as on 19.05.2022 in 6 monthly instalments (quantum is however disputed by applicant).

¶22

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and

¶23

¶24

S.A. 102 of 2022 19.11.2022

¶25

even otherwise, as no sale had taken place on scheduled date, owing to operation of interim stay granted by this Tribunal, on compliance of payment by applicant, there are no tenable merits in the present SA and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly, SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order if any stands vacated. All other IAs stand closed.

¶27

Pursuant to the memo dated 18.11.2022 filed on behalf of applicant, praying to discharge the debt due as on 19.05.2022 by negotiating and reconciling the statement of account with respondent bank, applicant is permitted to discharge the same in 6 monthly instalments commencing from December 2022, in any case not later than 30.06.2023. Respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law including their SARFAESI actions if the default of the borrower continues beyond 01.07.2023.

¶28

With the above directions, SA stands disposed.

¶29

A copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned as per extant guidelines.

¶30

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 19^th day of November, 2022)

¶31

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

R Nalayni v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Nalayni v. Canara Bank

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

Similar cases

M s Rajarajan Motors versus Icici Bank Limited

Gunasundari versus Union Bank of India

G Venkatesan versus Indian Bank

M Saravanan versus Canara Bank

City Union Bank versus M s Pon Lakshmi Traders

Raja Enterprises versus Canara Bank