Dismissed

P Vinoth v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT10 Aug 2022SA/195/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application challenging a sale notice. Finding no procedural infirmities and noting no sale occurred, the tribunal held the application infructuous but granted two months for settlement.

What did the court decide?

The sale notice was upheld, the application dismissed as infructuous, and the applicant granted two months (by 30.09.2022) to settle dues.

P Vinoth versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Specific Performance | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 195 of 2022 10.08.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 195 of 2022

¶7

P.Vinoth

¶8

S/o.Pedha Perumal Proprietor of M/s.Sanjeev Traders No.30, Main Road Melakasakudy Karaikal – 609 603 ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer

¶11

Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd No.149, Maj Apartment Bharathiyar Salai Karaikal – 609 602 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. T.Sai Krishnan Counsel for Respondent : M/s N.Somasundar

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 19.03.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 29.04.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,42,030.68p due as on 28.02.2022.

¶16

Respondent bank entered appearance and filed counter and typed set of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act.

¶17

¶18

S.A. 195 of 2022 10.08.2022

¶19

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicant that he availed credit facility to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs from respondent bank for his business purpose and was regular in repayment of dues without any delay or default. It is the case of applicant that though no valid mortgage is created over any of the properties, respondent bank is claiming mortgage by taking undue advantage of documents of title with respect to properties mentioned as Items 1 and 2 in the schedule, which were handed over to respondent bank for scrutiny of title. Though applicant was regular in repayment of installments, owing to Pandemic Covid-19, applicant suffered set back in business and he could not repay the installments, resulting in initiation of recovery measures under SARFAESI Act by respondent bank. It is submitted that in spite of applicant’s request to respondent bank for regularization and rescheduling of loan, without considering the same, respondent bank proceeded further and issued the subject impugned sale notice.

¶20

Whereas Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that availing of loan, execution of loan and security documents and default in repayment of installments were all admitted by applicant. As applicant committed default in repayment of installments, respondent bank classified the loan account as NPA on 31.03.2021 and issued Demand Notice dated 13.09.2021 under Section 13(2) of the Act, which was duly served to applicant. As applicant did not come forward to clear the dues, Possession Notice dated 24.11.2021 came to be issued, which was also duly served, affixed and published in newspapers as contemplated under the Act. It is submitted that there being no objection or representation to demand notice in terms of Section 13(3A) nor challenge

¶21

to possession notice within statutory period, respondent bank proceeded further with

¶22

¶23

S.A. 195 of 2022 10.08.2022

¶24

their recovery measures and issued Sale Notice impugned in this SA, which was duly served on 23.03.2022, affixed and published in newspapers strictly in compliance of SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for respondent bank that applicant’s contention that no valid mortgage has been created over any of his properties is hereby denied as applicant had confirmed his creation of equitable mortgage of Item No.1 property on 14.02.2017by deposit of original title deeds with respondent bank as security for credit facilities granted and to be granted.

¶25

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned sale notice and that sale did not take place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of interim condition, this SA has become infructuous and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶26

Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is ready and willing to approach respondent bank for a negotiated amicable settlement and hence prayed for two months time to settle with the bank.

¶27

As there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned sale notice and that the SA has become infructuous as no sale had taken place, this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Accordingly, this SA is dismissed, however without costs. Applicant is at liberty to approach respondent bank and settle the outstanding dues by or before 30.09.2022, failing which respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further with their SARFAESI

¶29

¶30

S.A. 195 of 2022 10.08.2022

¶31

measures, if the default of the borrower continues beyond that date. Interim stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶32

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 10^th day of August, 2022)

¶35

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

P Vinoth v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Vinoth v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank 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

Kaliyaperumal versus Hinduja Housing finance Limited

Suseel versus Indian Bank

Mrfs G Ellamal versus Indian Bank

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited Madipakkam Branch versus M/s Dr. Parthasarathy Memorial Hospital, Rep by its Prop. P. Karthik

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited versus Sugaa Natural Life Science

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. versus Ms K Divya