Dismissed

Mrs Mahalakshmi v. Mahindra Rural Housing finance Ltd.

DRT20 Sept 2022SA/39/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SARFAESI Application No. 39 of 2022, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application filed by borrowers against a possession notice issued by a secured creditor after finding no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application No. 39 of 2022 dismissed without cost; interim orders vacated; pending IAs closed.

Mrs Mahalakshmi versus Mahindra Rural Housing finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 39 of 2022 20.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 39 of 2022

¶7

1. Mrs. Mahalakshmi

W/o. Mr.Kumar

2. Mr.Kumar

S/o. Mr.Ganesan

Both residing at: No.7, Parthaasarathy Kovil Street Kummangalam, Ponneri

¶12

Thiruvallur – 601 204 ….Applicants

¶13

Vs.

¶14

1. The Authorised Officer

¶15

M/s. Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd No.621, SIRE Mansion, 2^nd Floor Anna Salai Above Khivraj Maruti Showroom Chennai – 600 006

¶16

Also at:

¶17

No.3, 1^st Floor, Gowri Andal Amman Street Rajagopal Nagar, Porur Chennai – 600 116 ….Respondent

¶18

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶19

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. G.Moses & M.Aathithyan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A.Damodaran, R.Meenakshi Devi & A.S.Neela Narayani

¶20

¶21

S.A. 39 of 2022 20.09.2022

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 29.12.2021 issued by respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.16,00,019/- from applicant.

¶24

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

¶25

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for both the parties. It is the case of applicants that the respondent financial institution has not followed the procedure as warranted under law while issuing the impugned possession notice and also while invoking SARFAESI action for recovery of their dues from the applicants herein. It is the case of applicants that the demand notice was not served upon them and that they are not also intimated about the date of declaring their housing loan account as an NPA. Ld. Counsel for applicants submit that owing to Covid-19 impact, their resources have fallen down and therefore the default to the respondents had occurred. It is submitted that applicants could not establish any bonafides even after approaching this Tribunal challenging the actions of the secured creditor and thus continued their default.

¶26

Whereas respondent financial institution is represented by their counsel who filed counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld. Counsel for respondent has furnished the original demand notice together with the acknowledgement cards received from the borrowers / applicants herein. It is submitted that the original possession notice served upon the borrowers has been filed in the

¶27

Tribunal by the applicants themselves in their paper book and the photographs evidencing affixture of the impugned possession notice are duly furnished. Ld. Counsel

¶28

¶29

S.A. 39 of 2022 20.09.2022

¶30

has submitted that impugned possession notice is also published in newspapers both in English and vernacular as required under law within the time granted by this statute and therefore there is no violation in the procedure adopted.

¶31

Ld. Counsel for respondent during the course of arguments has filed a memo, stating therein that applicants / borrowers had approached them for OTS and as the amount was very low to the outstanding due from the applicants the OTS was rejected and since then applicants have been making threatening calls to the Authorised Officer and other bank staff saying that he shall commit suicide by writing their names to be the cause of his death. It is also stated in the memo that respondent bank has filed an appropriate complaint before the police station about the alleged threats thus taking the same to logical conclusion. Submitting so, Ld. Counsel for respondent financial institution submits that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent, while issuing the impugned possession notice and therefore prays for an appropriate order, as the default of the borrower continued.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

S.A. 39 of 2022 20.09.2022

¶36

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed

¶37

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

¶38

guidelines.

¶39

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20^th day of September, 2022)

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mrs Mahalakshmi v. Mahindra Rural Housing finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Mahalakshmi v. Mahindra Rural Housing finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr C Jagadeesan versus Bank of Baroda

Fathima Gani versus Canara Bank

R Ravindran versus Bank of Baroda

Sankar versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Amar Dinesh

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