The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed this SARFAESI application filed by Abdul Nazar challenging a possession notice issued by Karur Vysya Bank, finding the bank complied with statutory procedures for service of notices to the borrower and guarantor.
The application challenging the possession notice was dismissed without cost. Interim orders were vacated.
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.
1
S.A. 30 of 2022 12.10.2022
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 30 of 2022
Abdul Nazar
Proprietor of M/s.Arasi Enterprises No.6, Kauvadikuppam Road Thiruvalluvar Nagar Muthialpet Puducherry – 605 003 ….Applicant Vs.
The Authorised Officer
The Karur Vysya Bank Limited No.10 & 11, Church Street Karaikal – 609 602 ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.Sugumaran, Y.Prakash, S.Vaiduriya & N.M.Sivasamy Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A.Arun Babu
ORDER
well as the impugned possession notice on the borrower and that the applicant is only a
2
S.A. 30 of 2022 12.10.2022
guarantor and proprietor of the principal borrower, M/s. Arasi Enterprises. Ld. Counsel has submitted that that the demand notice has not been served on the principal borrower and therefore respondent bank had caused a paper publication for service of the said demand notice but did not cause affixture of the same on a conspicuous place over the mortgaged property thus contravening the provisions of Rule 3 of SIE Rules. Ld. Counsel further submits that respondent bank had continued the same even for the impugned possession notice by not serving the same on the principal borrower and therefore submits that the actions of the respondent bank are not in accordance to law and prays to set aside the same.
3
S.A. 30 of 2022 12.10.2022
provisions of the Act although the proprietor of the principal borrower, M/s. Arasi Enterprises has acknowledged receipt of the demand notice. Ld. Counsel further submitted that it cannot be in the mouth of the applicant that notices to the proprietary concern, who is the principal borrower was not served - firstly for the reason that the said proprietary concern is not before this Tribunal agitating the actions of the secured creditor / respondent bank and secondly the so called proprietary concern is not different from its proprietor who is applicant herein and further cannot say that demand notice or the possession notice is not been served upon the principal borrower, to vitiate the SARFAESI actions of the secured creditor. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank further submits that applicant had not established their bonafides by approaching the respondent for any amicable settlement but are continuing their default owing to which respondent bank will be constrained to proceed further in accordance to law for recovery of its loan funds due from the applicant herein. Ld. Counsel has demonstrated through their counter and typed set of documents which evidenced that respondent bank has followed the procedure while issuing the impugned possession notice. Ld. Counsel reiterated that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent bank while issuing the impugned possession notice calling for interference by this Tribunal.
4
S.A. 30 of 2022 12.10.2022
(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 12th day of October, 2022)
Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal is justified in dismissing the SARFAESI application for non-compliance of service procedures.
Whether the proprietary concern and its proprietor are the same for the purpose of service of notices under the SARFAESI Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Nazar
The Authorised Officer, The Karur Vysya Bank Limited
Shri Ganapathi K.R.K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
