Dismissed

Mr P Devanand v. State Bank of India

DRT9 Sept 2022SA/300/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a SARFAESI Application challenging a possession notice issued by the State Bank of India under Section 13(4) for debt recovery. The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting the applicant failed to provide plausible reasons for an extension of time and failed to establish bonafides or procedural infirmities.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application No. 300 of 2022 dismissed without costs; subsisting interim order vacated; other pending IAs closed.

Mr P Devanand versus State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 300 of 2022 09.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 09^th day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 300 of 2022

¶7

Mr.P.Devanand S/o.Mr.Ponniah No.V-8, Rail Nagar Padikuppam, Koyambedu Chennai – 600 107 Also at Mr.P.Devanand RKR Apartments Flat No. F-5, First floor Plot No. 1A & 1B, Periyar Cross Street Ponniamman Nagar Ayanambakkam Village Chennai – 600 095 ….Applicant Vs. The Authorised Officer M/s. State Bank of India Retail Asset Central Processing Centre MRC Nagar No.4, Santhome High Road Mylapore Chennai – 600 004 ….Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S.Saravanan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S.Ambalvannan

¶8

¶9

S.A. 300 of 2022 09.09.2022

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 06.05.2022 issued by respondent bank under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,89,569/-

¶12

Ld. Counsel for applicant had sought further time while submitting that applicant could not comply either of the conditions imposed by this Tribunal, pursuant to memo of undertaking to discharge the debt by the Applicants. No plausible reasons are given by applicants for considering extension of time.

¶13

Respondent is on caveat and had filed typed set of documents evidencing their actions up to the issuance of impugned Possession Notice dated 06.05.2022. Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank had demonstrated the actions while issuing the impugned possession notice through the typed set of documents, which are found to be in accordance to law. Copy of the typed set of documents is furnished to the Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant.

¶14

As applicants had neither established their bonafides nor had demonstrated any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned possession notice dated 06.05.2022, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is therefore liable to be dismissed.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

S.A. 300 of 2022 09.09.2022

¶18

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶19

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

¶20

guidelines.

¶21

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 09^th day of September, 2022)

¶22

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

Mr P Devanand v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr P Devanand v. State Bank of India

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

Mr R Kumar versus Canara Bank

Veerendra Anand Kmar versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank

M S M P Traders versus Indian Overseas Bank

P C Bhaskar versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

V Kumar versus Canara Bank