Dismissed

Shree Balaji Printers Private Limited and Others v. Flutterton India Credit Company Limited

DRT11 Nov 2022SA/139/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the stay application challenging a possession notice issued by the Authorised Officer. Noting the applicants' failure to demonstrate bona fides and comply with interim conditions, the Court rejected the claim of procedural infirmity.

What did the court decide?

Stay application dismissed; liberty granted to approach respondent for settlement by 15.12.2022.

Shree Balaji Printers Private Limited and Others versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 139 of 2022 11.11.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 139 of 2022

¶7

1. Shree Balaji Printers Private Limited

¶8

Rep. by its Director K.Venkatesan No.82/2A, Kamarajar Salai Avvichi School Back Side Virugambakkam Chennai – 600 092

¶9

2. Mr.J.Deenadayalan

¶10

S/o. Mr.C.Jagannathan Old No.4/172, New No 3/408 Yamuna Street, Ganga Nagar Moovarasampet, Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091

¶11

3. Mrs.D.Vidhya

¶12

W/o.J.Deenadayalan Old No.4/172, New No 3/408 Yamuna Street, Ganga Nagar Moovarasampet, Madpiakkam Chennai – 600 091

¶13

4. Mr.K.Venkatesan

¶14

S/o. Late V.Kamalavannan No.62, B Block, F-4 9^th Street, Balaji Nagar Gerugambakkam Chennai – 600 122

¶15

5. Mrs.V.Geetha

¶16

W/o.K.Venkatesan No.62, B Block, F-4 9^th Street, Balaji Nagar Gerugambakkam Chennai – 600 122

¶17

¶18

S.A. 139 of 2022 11.11.2022

¶19

6. Mr.K.Ramesh

¶20

S/o.Late V.Kamalavannan No.1, 3^rd Cross Street Ganesh Nagar, Near Reliance Super Market back side Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091

¶21

7. Mr.K.Ramu

¶22

S/o.Late V.Kamalakannan No.1, 3^rd Cross Street Ganesh Nagar, Near Reliance Super Market back side Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091

¶23

8. Mr.K.Krishna Kumar

¶24

S/o.Late V.Kamalakannan No.1, 3^rd Cross Street Ganesh Nagar, Near Reliance Super Market back side Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091

¶25

9. Mrs.S.Kanchana

¶26

W/o.Late G.Sriramulu No.3, Bharat Nagar, First Main Road Manipakkam, Chennai – 600 091

¶27

10. Mrs.S.Rathna

¶28

W/o. Late G.Sureshbabu No.14, Kariyan Ponnan Street F-3, VAsanthan Flat, Near Indian Bank Venkatesh Nagar, Puzhuthivakkam Chennai – 600 091

¶29

11. Mrs.R.Girija

¶30

W/o.V.Ravikumar Old No.4/172, New No.3/408 Yamuna Street, Ganga Nagar Moovarasampet, Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091 ….Applicants

¶31

Vs.

¶32

The Authorised Officer - cum – Chief Manager The Fullerton India Credit Company Limited Registered Office at: MEGH TOWERS, 3^rd Floor Old No.307, New No. 165

¶33

¶34

S.A. 139 of 2022 11.11.2022

¶35

Poonamallee High Road, Maduravoyal Chennai – 600 095 ….Respondent

¶36

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶37

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. V.Rajasekar, K.Ashok Kumar & R.Mahendrababu Counsel for Respondent : M/s. V.Balasubramani & V.Vadivelan

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 16.02.2022 issued by respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.99,79,442/-.

¶40

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for respondent. No representation for applicant during 1st and 2nd rounds of call work. Later after the bench is concluded, Ld.Counsel for applicant has come and submitted that he could not be on time as he fell down due to inclement weather.

¶41

It is the case of applicants that they intend to negotiate with respondent bank for

¶42

an amicable settlement, but however they were unable to do so due to paucity of funds. Ld.Counsel for applicants submitted that respondent financial institution has not extended any of the benefits that RBI has granted for exemption of repayments in view of Covid pandemic. It is also the case of applicants that owing to the said Covid – 19 pandemic their earning capacities were impacted, owing to which their account slipped into NPA and that if reasonable time is granted it is their endeavour to regularise their loan account and continue the repayment schedule in terms of their contractual obligations. Ld.Counsel submitted that 4 to 6 weeks may be granted for applicants to approach respondent financial institution to arrive at any negotiated settlement.

¶43

¶44

S.A. 139 of 2022 11.11.2022

¶45

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent financial institution is present and has demonstrated the actions of respondent financial institution while issuing the impugned possession notice, right from the stage of declaring the account as NPA. It is submitted that demand notice was issued on 16.12.2021 which is received by all applicants herein. As applicants did not raise any objections to the same nor has caused any repayments, respondent financial institution is constrained to issue the impugned possession notice on 13.02.2022 which has been duly served on all borrowers. Ld.Counsel submits that paper publication was caused on 21.02.2022 and also the same is affixed on the conspicuous part of the mortgaged property and thus respondent financial institution has complied all the rules and provisions as warranted under the act while issuing the impugned possession notice. Ld.Counsel further submits that applicants continued their default even after approaching this Tribunal and have not remitted any amounts much less the conditional payments ordered by this Tribunal while considering the stay petition moved on behalf of applicants. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.

¶46

From the foregone submissions, it is evident that respondent financial institution has followed the procedure as warranted under law and that applicants could not establish any infirmities in the procedure adopted. It is also evident that applicants continued their default and did not even comply the interim conditions imposed by this Tribunal to establish their bonafides. Consequently as there are no tenable merits in the present SA, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order if any stands vacated. All other IAs stand closed.

¶47

¶48

S.A. 139 of 2022 11.11.2022

¶49

However, liberty be with applicants to approach respondent financial institution for any negotiated settlement by or before 15.12.2022, failing which respondent financial institution will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law if the default of borrowers continues.

¶50

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶51

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

¶52

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 11^th day of November, 2022)

¶53

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

Shree Balaji Printers Private Limited and Others v. Flutterton India Credit Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Balaji Printers Private Limited and Others v. Flutterton India Credit Company Limited

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 Prasanth versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

G Saravanan versus Karur Vysya Bank

Canara Bank versus M s Ganga Engineering Works

Sbs Enterprises versus Hdb Financial Services Limited

A Akilan versus Indian Bank

G Venkatesan versus Indian Bank