Dismissed

Mrs S R Thilagavathi Prop S S Ramachandiran Agency W O Ramachandran v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT23 Sept 2022SA/313/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's SARFAESI application challenging the respondent bank's sale notice. The court held that the bank followed the statutory procedure, the applicant was properly served as the proprietor, and no infirmities existed in the issuance or service of the notice.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice stands upheld; SA dismissed without costs; pending IAs closed.

Mrs S R Thilagavathi Prop S S Ramachandiran Agency W O… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 313 of 2022 23.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 313 of 2022

¶7

Mrs.S.R.Thilagavathi

¶8

Proprietrix – S.S.Ramachandiran Agency W/o. Mr.Ramachandiran (Late) No.5, Anna Vasal Main Road, Nedungadu Village Thirunallar Taluk Karaikal – 609 603

¶9

Also residing at: Door No. 140, Kamarajar Salai Nedungadu Village Thirunallar Taluk Karaikal – 609 603 ….Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Authorised Officer

¶12

Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited (Previously Known as Equitas Finance Limited) 4^th Floor, Phase II, Spencer Plaza, No.769, Mount Road, Anna Salai Chennai ….Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. T.Sai Krishnan, R.Saravanan, A. Adhi Chakravarthy & G.Lavanya Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S.Suresh & M.K.Malini Dhurga

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 06.06.2022 issued by respondent bank under section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,81,61,841/-.

¶17

¶18

S.A. 313 of 2022 23.09.2022

¶19

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

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for both the parties. It is the case of applicants that the impugned sale notice is not served to the principal borrower while the secured creditor has served the earlier demand notice and possession notice. It is the further case of applicants that the valuation of the property has not been properly valued in accordance to the prevailing market value but has been grossly undervalued. Ld. Counsel further submitted that applicants had mortgaged the properties for availing the loans which are duly covered for the outstanding payable to the respondent bank.

¶21

Whereas Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submits that respondent bank has followed the procedure as warranted under law and that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted while issuing the impugned sale notice. Ld. Counsel has submitted that applicant is the proprietrix of the principal borrower and therefore the sale notice is issued in favour of the applicant and the factum of she being the proprietorix of the borrower concern is mentioned in the sale notice itself, which is duly acknowledged by the applicant herein and cannot now have a hyper technical objection that the applicant is different from the proprietary concern and therefore there is no service on the principal borrower. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that applicants had cheated both the respondent bank as well as the Petroleum Agency for which they have leased the land as they produced “No Objection Certificate” from the said Petroleum company being HPCL, a Government of India enterprise, as if it was genuinely given by the said Petroleum Company. Whereas on the bank addressing a letter to the said company for

¶22

¶23

S.A. 313 of 2022 23.09.2022

¶24

the confirmation of mortgage as well as the dues recoverable from the applicant herein, it had transpired that no such “No Objection Certificate” has been issued by the said Petroleum Company and that borrowers had furnished a forged and fake documents to create mortgage in favour of the bank for the loan funds utilised. Respondent bank came to know of the same only when they had addressed a letter asking the said Petroleum Company not to cause supplies since they intend to take possession of the property in exercise of their mortgage rights. Ld. Counsel submits that consequent upon service of the impugned sale notice, respondent bank has caused affixture of the same on conspicuous place and also caused paper publication in two leading newspapers, one in English and one in vernacular as warranted under law. Ld. Counsel submits that the impugned sale notice has become infructuous for want of bidders and therefore nothing survives in the present application, as the borrowers had not established any bonafides even after approaching this Tribunal and are continuing their default.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

¶29

S.A. 313 of 2022 23.09.2022

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23^rd day of September, 2022)

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mrs S R Thilagavathi Prop S S Ramachandiran Agency W O Ramachandran v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs S R Thilagavathi Prop S S Ramachandiran Agency W O Ramachandran v. Equitas Small Finance 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

Jayakumar versus Uco Bank

Aneesha Alias versus Indian Bank

Mrs C Nagalakshmi W O M Chandran versus City Union Bank Limited

S Vignesh versus City Union Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Horn Bill Enterprises

Kasturi Aqua Needs versus City Union Bank Limited