Allowed

Miha Catering Services Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director Santhacrus Sagayaraj v. Rbl Bank Limited

DRT21 Sept 2022SA/37/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the SARFAESI Application filed by a corporate applicant challenging a possession notice issued by the respondent bank. The bank failed to prove service of demand or possession notices, so the Tribunal set aside the notice, restored possession, and granted liberty to initiate action afresh.

What did the court decide?

Possession notice dated 29.12.2021 set aside; possession restored to mortgagor; liberty to bank to initiate action afresh.

Miha Catering Services Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 37 of 2022 21.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 21^st day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 37 of 2022

¶7

M/s.Miha Catering Services Pvt. Ltd

¶8

Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.Santhacrus Sagayaraj No.1601 Nayapakkam Road Venkateswara Nagar Sriperumbudur Chennai – 602 105 ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer R.B.L. Bank Ltd Saikalyani Business Center No.105/56, G.N.Chetty Road T.Nagar Chennai – 600 017 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S.Ananda Kumar, A.M.Natraj & S.A.Willington Counsel for Respondent : M/s. M.Ajmal Azzath, J.Ramakrishnan, K.Rafiya Parveen & Mohanprasath.M

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 29.12.2021 issued

¶15

by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,23,45,228.77p from applicant.

¶16

Both sides are present. Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant and Representative counsel for respondent. It is the case of applicant that, consequent upon their default, to discharge their debt, in accordance to the contractual obligations, the account slipped into NPA. As applicant could not make any remittances to their loan account, their default continued resulting in the present

¶17

¶18

S.A. 37 of 2022 21.09.2022

¶19

proceedings. Ld. Counsel submits that respondent has not followed the procedure as warranted under law and the present actions are arbitrary and not lawful. Ld. Counsel further submits that as applicant could not muster any amounts for discharge of their debt due, they could not comply with the interim condition imposed by this Tribunal at the time of moving the SA and thus their default continued.

¶20

Whereas respondent bank represented by their counsel, filed counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. On perusal of the documents representative counsel could not establish service of the demand notice nor of the impugned possession notice. No document is filed to establish the same. As respondent bank could not establish vires of their SARFAESI actions, the present SA is liable to be allowed.

¶21

Accordingly SA stands allowed. Consequently possession notice dated 29.12.2021 is set aside. Possession is restored to mortgagor. Liberty be with respondent bank to initiate action afresh if the default of the borrower continues. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶22

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶23

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

¶24

guidelines.

¶25

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 21^st day of September, 2022)

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Miha Catering Services Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director Santhacrus Sagayaraj v. Rbl Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miha Catering Services Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director Santhacrus Sagayaraj v. Rbl 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

Sankar versus Icici Bank Limited

Mrs Mahalakshmi versus Mahindra Rural Housing finance Ltd.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Amar Dinesh

S Rani Thomas versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Jayakumar versus Uco Bank

Aneesha Alias versus Indian Bank