Dismissed

R Ravindran v. Bank of Baroda

DRT16 Sept 2022SA/115/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application filed by a borrower challenging eviction measures initiated by a bank under Section 14. The court found the bank's actions compliant with statutory procedures for non-performing assets and notes issued notices. However, the court permitted a final settlement deadline before dismissing the challenge.

What did the court decide?

Application stayed without cost; applicant granted 31 days for negotiated settlement; existing interim orders vacated.

R Ravindran versus Bank of Baroda — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 115 of 2022 16.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.115 of 2022

¶7

R.Ravindran

¶8

S/o.Mr.Ramakrishnan No.1/11, East Street Peraiyur Village Manargudi Taluk ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda Mannargudi Branch Mannargudi Taluk Thiruvarur District ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G.Sanjeevi & B.Thirumalai Counsel for Respondent : M/s. G.Rajamohan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvarur in Cr.

¶15

M.P. No.474/2021 dated 07.01.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.31,73,513,50p

¶16

Respondent bank had entered appearance and filed its counter and typed set of

¶17

documents evidencing the actions taken by them under the Act.

¶18

¶19

S.A. 115 of 2022 16.09.2022

¶20

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicant that he had availed credit facilities to the tune of Rs.24 lakhs on 13.02.2019 and Rs.8.5 lakhs on 14.07.2019 from respondent bank and offered his immovable property as collateral security for the loan facilities availed. Applicant was regularly repaying the EMIs and had never let the account turn into NPA. It is the case of applicant that without classifying the loan account as NPA, respondent bank had proceeded with their recovery measures under SARFAESI Act, without issuing proper demand notice and possession notice. During the month of November, 2020 applicant had undergone kidney transplantation and had to incur heavy medical expenditure. On 15.02.2022, Advocate Commissioner along with bank officials had visited the premises and evicted the applicant along with family members without giving sufficient time to take the essential belongings.

¶21

It is submitted on behalf of applicant that it is the endeavour of applicant to negotiate with respondent bank for an amicable settlement, which he had been prosecuting but could not arrive at any conclusion thereof.

¶22

Whereas Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that availing of loan, execution of loan and security documents and default committed are all admitted by applicant. It is submitted that the repayment in the loan account was irregular from beginning and as the default continued, respondent bank was constrained to classify the loan account as NPA on 25.05.2020 and issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 09.04.2021, which was duly served to applicant on 13.04.2021 as evidenced from acknowledgment cards filed along with typed set of documents. As

¶23

¶24

S.A. 115 of 2022 16.09.2022

¶25

applicant did not come forward to repay the dues within statutory period nor raised any objection / sent any representation to Section 13(2) notice, respondent bank proceeded further and issued Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, which was duly served, affixed and published in two leading newspapers as contemplated under the Act. Thereafter, respondent bank had approached Ld. CJM, Tiruvarur for taking physical possession of the property.

¶26

Ld. Counsel for respondent bank through counter and typed set of documents demonstrated the actions taken by them under the Act, which are found to be in accordance to law.

¶27

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any infirmities except for praying time to enter into a negotiated settlement with respondent, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Accordingly this SA stands dismissed, however without cost. Applicant is permitted to enter into negotiated settlement with respondent bank in any case by or before 31.10.2022, failing which respondent will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶29

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶30

¶31

S.A. 115 of 2022 16.09.2022

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 16^th day of September, 2022)

¶34

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

R Ravindran v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Ravindran v. Bank of Baroda

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

Similar cases

Lakshminarayanan versus Indusind Bank Limited

M s Vetrivel Auto Electrical Components versus Canara Bank

Acharya Arts Proprietor K M Johnson versus Canara Bank

K Kaliyaperumal versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Mr C Jagadeesan versus Bank of Baroda

Fathima Gani versus Canara Bank