Dismissed

Sbs Enterprises v. Hdb Financial Services Limited

DRT11 Nov 2022SA/262/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession notice issued for recovery of Rs. 2.36 crore. The court held that the respondent followed the statutory procedure and the applicant could not demonstrate any infirmities, noting the applicant had failed to remit previously committed amounts.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application was dismissed without costs; interim orders were vacated and other intermediaries were closed.

Sbs Enterprises versus Hdb Financial Services Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 262 of 2022 11.11.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 262 of 2022

¶7

1. SBS Enterprises

¶8

Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.S.Baranidharan No.84, GST Road, Cheizaiyan Complex Chengalpattu Kancheepuram – 603 002

¶9

2. S.Baranidharan

¶10

S/o. Sampath

¶11

No.31, Kailasanathar Kovil Street Periya natham, Chengalpattu Chengalpattu Dristrict – 603 002

¶12

3. Rekha.S

¶13

W/o. S.Baranidharan

¶14

No.31, Kailasanathar Kovil Street Periya natham, Chengalpattu Chengalpattu Dristrict – 603 002

¶15

4. Thilagam

¶16

W/o.Sampath No.31, Kailasanathar Kovil Street Periya natham, Chengalpattu Chengalpattu Dristrict – 603 002

¶17

5. E.Sampath

¶18

S/o. Late Elumalai No.31, Kailasanathar Kovil Street Periya natham, Chengalpattu Chengalpattu Dristrict – 603 002 ….Applicants

¶19

Vs.

¶20

The Authorised Officer

¶21

HDB Financial Services Limited No.68/2, 4^th Floor, Loyal Towers

¶22

¶23

S.A. 262 of 2022 11.11.2022

¶24

Greams Road, Thousand Lights Chennai – 600 006 ….Respondent

¶25

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶26

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. M.Dharani Dharan & K.Lokesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent : M/s. M.Ajmal Azzath, J.Ramakrishnan & K.Rafiya Parveen

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 12.04.2022 issued by respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,36,69,481.62p.

¶29

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties. Written submissions on behalf

¶30

of both parties along with dates and events are duly filed after circulating copies between the counsels.

¶31

It is the case of applicants that they contemplated to negotiate with respondent financial institution for a negotiated amicable settlement of the loan dues. However, as they could not muster enough funds to atleast deposit the initial amount for approaching respondent financial institution, they could not approach and as their business is slowly limping to normalcy, it is their endeavour to approach respondent financial institution for a settlement of their loan account. Ld.Counsel for applicants, Mr.Dharanidharan, who was present in the court submitted that, although his client intended to settle the outstanding with respondent, they were not in a position to do so for want of funds and that they shall be able to negotiate with respondent on receipt of funds, for which they are making arrangements. It is also submitted that applicants shall be willing to negotiate if some more time is granted.

¶32

¶33

S.A. 262 of 2022 11.11.2022

¶34

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent financial institution has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing the actions of respondent financial institution while issuing the impugned possession notice. Ld.Counsel has demonstrated the actions of respondent financial institution through their dates and events filed today which are found to be in accordance to law.

¶35

From the foregone submissions of both the parties and taking into consideration the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties, it is evident that respondent financial institution has followed the procedure as warranted under law and that applicants could not make out any infirmities. It is also evident that applicants continued their default even after approaching this Tribunal by not remitting the amounts which they had undertaken before this Tribunal to remit.

¶36

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

¶37

Accordingly, SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order if any stands vacated. All other IAs stand closed.

¶38

With the above directions, SA stands disposed.

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 11^th day of November, 2022)

¶41

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

Sd/-

Sbs Enterprises v. Hdb Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sbs Enterprises v. Hdb Financial Services 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

M Prasanth versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

G Saravanan versus Karur Vysya Bank

Canara Bank versus M s Ganga Engineering Works

A Akilan versus Indian Bank

Shree Balaji Printers Private Limited and Others versus Flutterton India Credit Company Limited

G Venkatesan versus Indian Bank