The Tribunal dismissed an application filed by a borrower challenging recovery measures initiated by a bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Finding no infirmities in the bank's procedure, the Tribunal held the application lacked merits.
SA dismissed without costs; interim order vacated; other IAs closed.
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. 82 of 2022 10.11.2022
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 82 of 2022
M.Prasanth
S/o.Mr.S.Mahadevan No.11, Aasarai Veethi Kunichampet Korakeni Pondicherry – 605 001 ….Applicant
Vs.
The Authorised Officer
M/s.Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd Regional Office No.28/36, First Floor South West Boag Road T.Nagar Chennai – 600 007 ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.Sreedhar, Revathi Sreedhar, P.Malaravan, S.Suresh & E.Kanmani Counsel for Respondent : M/s. V.Balasubramani & V.Vadivelan
ORDER
CJM, Puducherry dated 22.12.2021. It is the case of applicant that they had availed
2
S.A. 82 of 2022 10.11.2022
Housing loan from respondent bank and could not adhere to his repayment schedule because of onset of Covid pandemic. It is the case of applicant that the loan has to be discharged in 180 instalments at the rate of Rs.29,788/- per month. It is the further case of applicant that applicant has caused repayment of EMIs of one year to ensure that his loan account is regularized, however respondent bank has only received the money but did not regularize the loan account and continued their actions. Ld.Counsel for applicant has submitted that in compliance of this Tribunal’s directions, applicant had deposited 10% of the outstanding amount, but could not comply further payments owing to paucity of funds. It is the further case of applicant that they had already approached respondent bank for a negotiated settlement but respondent bank had not considered the same and are proceeding with their actions under SARFAESI. Ld.Counsel has submitted that applicant intend to negotiate with respondent bank for an amicable settlement if reasonable time is given as applicant is now only recouping himself from the impact of Covid pandemic.
3
S.A. 82 of 2022 10.11.2022
Puducherry, there are no tenable merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.
stands vacated. All other IAs stand closed.
(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 10th day of November, 2022)
Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant made out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the present SARFAESI application has tenable merits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Prasanth
The Authorised Officer, M/s.Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd
Ganapathi K.R.K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
