Dismissed

Ms Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill prop Mr Selvanathan Mr Krishnasamy v. Indian Bank

DRT9 Nov 2022SA/17/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application challenging a possession notice. Finding no infirmities in the bank's procedure, including regarding CERSAI registration, the court held the application lacked merits.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs; interim order vacated; pending IAs closed.

What the court decided

Ms Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill prop Mr Selvanathan Mr… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 17 of 2022 09.11.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 09^th day of November, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 17 of 2022

¶7

1. M/s.Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill

¶8

Rep. by its proprietor Mr.Selvanathan @ Adiyapatham R.S.No.49/8, Embalam Main Road Karikalampakkam Nettaipakkam Commune Pondicherry – 605 007

¶9

2. Mr.Selvanathan @ Adiyapatham

¶10

S/o. Srinivasan No.82, Muthuramman Koil Street

¶11

Pondicherry – 605 001

¶12

3. Mr.M.Krishnasamy @ Murali S/o.Selvanathan @ Adiyapatham No.82, Muthuramman Koil Street

¶13

Pondicherry – 605 001 ….Applicants

¶14

Vs.

¶15

The Authorised Officer

¶16

Indian Bank, Pondiherry Main Branch No.288, 2^nd Floor, MG Road Amudhasurabhi Building Pondicherry – 605 001 ….Respondent

¶17

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶18

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. A.Gouthaman, Magesh, M.Suresh & Srinivasan.J Counsel for Respondent : M/s. P.V.Murlidhar & P.M.Surendhar

¶19

¶20

S.A. 17 of 2022 09.11.2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 14.12.2021 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.53,83,257/-.

¶23

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶24

It is the case of applicants that they had challenged the impugned possession notice dated 14.12.2021 and that they intend to negotiate with respondent bank for an amicable settlement. Ld.Counsel submits that the date of declaring the account as NPA is not in accordance to the rules laid down by RBI. It is also the case of applicants that the Authorised Officer who issued the demand notice was not the Authorised Officer who has issued the impugned possession notice. It is also the case of applicants that property is not registered with CERSAI as required under Sec.26(D) of the Act and therefore the actions of respondent bank are not in accordance to law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶25

Whereas, Ld.Counsel appearing for respondent bank has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld.Counsel demonstrated the actions of respondent bank through their typed set of documents, which is found to be in accordance to law. It is submitted that except for compliance of interim condition imposed by this Tribunal, applicants did not pay any further payments to regularise their loan account and continued their default. It is also submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent bank while issuing the impugned possession notice and prays for an appropriate order.

¶26

¶27

S.A. 17 of 2022 09.11.2022

¶28

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent bank while issuing the impugned possession notice dated 14.12.2021, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Accordingly this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶30

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶31

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

¶32

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 09^th day of November, 2022)

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill prop Mr Selvanathan Mr Krishnasamy v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Ms Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill prop Mr Selvanathan Mr Krishnasamy v. Indian Bank

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

K Ravikumar versus India Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Mrs Malika Sr versus Indian Bank

Sharon christabel Packiamuthju versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

K Rajendran versus Repco Bank

Canara Bank versus M s M a K Exports

M Prasanth versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.