SARFAESI application by a guarantor challenging a possession notice demanding recovery beyond her guarantee limit. The Debt Recovery Tribunal held the guarantor failed to establish infirmities in the bank's procedure and dismissed the application.
SA dismissed without cost; interim orders vacated and other IAs closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S.A. 155 of 2022 19.09.2022
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 155 of 2022
Fathima Gani W/o.Ibrahim No.3/163, Arulanandaham Nagar Chinnamathur Nagar Manali Thiruvallur – 600 068 ….Applicant
Vs.
The Authorised Officer Canara Bank SME (Guindy) Branch B-22, T.V.K Industrial Estate Guindy Chennai – 600 032 ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Paul Britto Kumar & M.Sakthivel Counsel for Respondent : M/s. K.Kumar
ORDER
by respondent bank, for recovery of a sum of Rs.64,43,374.93p from applicant.
2
S.A. 155 of 2022 19.09.2022
respondent bank, which is restricted to Rs.50,00,000/-. It is submitted that, however the demand notice and impugned possession notice contained demands of further amounts of Rs.15 Lakhs which is granted and availed by the principal borrower, for which neither guarantee is extended nor any other documents executed by the present applicant / guarantor. It is the case of guarantor that her guarantee is restricted only to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- and not to the further loans granted in favour of principal borrower for which she did not stand as guarantor and therefore the actions of the respondent bank demanding higher amounts than what was guaranteed by the guarantor, will not satisfy the requirements of law and therefore the present actions of the secured creditor are liable to set aside.
3
S.A. 155 of 2022 19.09.2022
default of the borrower continued, the present SARFAESI action came to be initiated, despite which, except for a payment of Rs.6,45,000/- after receipt of demand notice, nothing has been paid thus far although applicant has undertaken to deposit 20% of the possession notice amount at the time of initiating the present SA.
guidelines.
(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 19th day of September, 2022)
Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant, as a guarantor liable only up to Rs.50,00,000/-, was validly subjected to SARFAESI action for amounts advanced by the principal borrower beyond her guarantee limit.
Whether the procedure adopted by the respondent bank in issuing the Possession Notice contained any infirmities warranting intervention by this Tribunal.
Fathima Gani
The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank SME (Guindy) Branch
Shri Ganapathi K.R.K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
