DRT dismissed applicant's suit challenging possession notice under SARFAESI but permitted three months to regularise dues due to pandemic-related financial distress, vacating interim stay.
Three months granted to regularise loan account with liberty to negotiate amicable settlement.
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.
SA No.174/2022
08.07.2022
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 08th day of July, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
S.A. No. 174 of 2022
Sh. S. Saravanan, No.3/268, Odasalpatti Post, Dharmapuri, Tamilnadu – 635 303
….Applicant
– Vs. –
The Authorised Officer, Varthana Finance Private Limited, Varasiddhi, 3rd Floor, 5 BC-110, Service Road, 3rd Block, HRBR Layout, Bangalore – 560 043 ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s K.K.N. Ganeshan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Nathan & Associates
O R D E R
SA No.174/2022
2
08.07.2022
intended to regularise their loan account, there were very poor collection of fees and that many of the staff were also could not be paid their salaries. Ld. Counsel further submits that there are about 500 children being imparted education and the school is slowly reviving now and submits that applicants will be able to discharge their debt in its entirety, if reasonable time is extended by the respondents. Ld. Counsel submits that owing to shortfall of revenues, applicant’s school could not remit the installments to the respondent nor could atleast comply with the interim order of this Tribunal. Notwithstanding the same, a memo came to be filed on behalf of applicants suggesting that they shall be able to generate revenues to close the total outstanding due to respondent, within a time frame of nine months i.e., by or before 29.03.2023, when this Tribunal informed that Tribunal cannot be interfering in the contractual obligations subsisting between the parties and that it would only be the discretion of respondent to grant time or chose to prosecute for the same through their SARFAESI measures, Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that applicants may be permitted three months time to regularise their overdues with the respondent and then negotiate with them for amicable settlement of the total dues. Ld. Counsel reiterated that if three months time is granted, the fee collected from about 500 children will enable the applicants to discharge the overdues and also bring the account to reasonable limits and then it can be negotiated with respondent, since they intended to establish their bonafides before seeking any settlement proposal. Submitting so, Ld. Counsel for applicant had prayed for appropriate orders.
SA No.174/2022
3
08.07.2022
(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 08th day of July, 2022)
Sd/-
(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there were infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent while issuing the possession notice.
Whether the applicant can be permitted time to regularise their loan account notwithstanding initial dismissal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sh. S. Saravanan
The Authorised Officer, Varthana Finance Private Limited
Ganapathi K.R.K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
