Dismissed

Gopinath B J and others v. Dcb Bank Limited

DRT15 Dec 2022SA/255/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Appellate Bench dismissed the Special Appeal filed by borrowers challenging the bank's possession measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court found no procedural infirmities or merits in the applicants' challenge.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed without cost; interim orders vacated; other pending IAs closed.

Gopinath B J and others versus Dcb Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2022)

SA No.255/2022

15.12.2022

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2022

¶6

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

¶7

S.A. No.255 of 2022

¶8

Sh. B.J. Gopinath, No.6/11, Silapathikaram Street, Srinivasa Nagar, Perungalathur, Chennai – 600 063

¶9

2. Vijaya J No.6/11, Silapathikaram Street, Srinivasa Nagar, Perungalathur, Chennai – 600 063
3. Sathyapriya G No.6/11, Silapathikaram Street, Srinivasa Nagar, Perungalathur, Chennai – 600 063	….Applicant
– Vs. –
DCB Bank Limited Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Branch Office at No.6, Rajaji Road Opp. Tennis Stadium
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034	….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant	: M/s. D. Durairaj
Counsel for Respondent	: M/s. Chandramohan

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This SA is filed challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram

¶13

District at Chengalpet in Crl.M.P. No.10261/2021 dated 24.02.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,82,87,394/- from applicants.

SA No.255/2022

15.12.2022

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

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicants that they availed credit facilities to the tune of Rs.66,30,000/- and Rs.28 lakhs from respondent bank on 30.03.2015 and offered the schedule mentioned property as security for due repayment of loan thus availed. It is the further case of applicants that they were regular in repayment of installments without any delay or default, however owing to Pandemic Covid-19, they suffered loss in business resulting in default in repayment of installments and initiation of recovery measures by respondent bank. It is submitted that respondent bank without serving possession notice to applicants nor affixing the same, had approached Ld. CJM for obtaining physical possession of the property. It is submitted that respondent bank had obtained an order from Ld. CJM on 24.02.2022 for taking physical possession of the property against dead person, who being the original owner of the property, passed away on 14.09.2020.

¶19

Whereas Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that availing of loan, execution of loan and security documents, creation of security interest are all admitted by applicants. As applicant did not come forward to repay the dues despite several requests made by respondent bank, borrower’s loan account was classified as NPA on 04.09.2017 and Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 17.10.2017 was issued, which was duly served on all applicants, as evidenced from the acknowledgment cards filed along with typed set of documents. It is further submitted that despite receipt of demand notice, as applicants did not come forward to make any payments or regularize the loan account, respondent had issued

SA No.255/2022

15.12.2022

Possession Notice dated 13.11.2019, which notice was also duly served to applicants on 20.11.2019, affixed and published in two newspapers as contemplated under the Act. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that applicant did not convey the death of mortgagor and the same was known to respondent bank only after filing of this SA by applicants. Moreover, order of Ld. CJM is enforceable as other applicants, who are legal heirs of deceased mortgagor are arrayed as parties.

¶24

Ld. Counsel for respondent has demonstrated their actions in terms of their counter and documents, which are found to be in accordance to law. Ld. Counsel for applicant fairly admits that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent institution.

¶25

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any infirmities, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 15^th day of December, 2022)

¶30

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

Gopinath B J and others v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopinath B J and others v. Dcb Bank Limited

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

P R Engineers and Contractors versus Icici Bank Limited

Arul versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Moises Lawrence versus Indian Overseas Bank

Mrs v Radhika D o Seshagiri Rao versus Dcb Bank Limited

A Dhamayanthi versus State Bank of India

SSdiq Ali Son of Mohammed Ahifa versus Repco Home Finance Limited