Allowed

M/S Kings Bakes v. Federal Bank

DRT19 Oct 2022SA/85/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a securitization application filed by borrowers challenging SARFAESI notices. The bank withdrew the demand and possession notices, prompting the Tribunal to set aside the notices, direct restoration of assets, and order credits for expenses incurred.

What did the court decide?

Set aside demand and possession notices; restore possession of secured assets to borrowers; direct defendants to crediting expenses debited from applicants' accounts.

M/S Kings Bakes versus Federal Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2022

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.85/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s.Kings Bakes,

¶7

XII/1766, Moolakkada, Thekkady Junction,

¶8

Kumily, Idukki – 685 509.

¶9

Ajmi Abdul Majeed, W/o.Anzar Kamar.K, Poovakkattu Mannil, Valamchuzhy, Pathanamthitta.P.O.,

¶10

Pathanamthitta District – 689 645.

¶11

Anzar Kamar.K, S/o.Kamarudeen Kasim, Poovakkattu Mannil, Valamchuzhy, Pathanamthitta.P.O., Pathanamthitta District – 689 645. …Applicants

¶12

And

¶13

Federal Bank, LCRD Kottayam Division, Thekkumkal Building, T.B.Road, Kottayam – 686 001, Represented by Branch Manager.

¶14

Authorised Officer, Federal Bank, LCRD Kottayam Division, Thekkumkal Building, T.B.Road, Kottayam – 686 001. …Defendants

¶15

This Securitization Application having been heard on 28.09.2022

¶16

in the presence of Advocates M/s.Jasmine.V.H, Jeswin.P.Varghese, Muhammed Ansari and Reethu Jacob for the applicants and Advocate

¶17

SA 85/2022

¶18

¶19

Smt.Ruby.P.Paulose for the defendants, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶20

F I N A L O R D E R

¶21

This securitization application is filed by the borrowers under S.17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the SARFAESI Act’) challenging the possession notice issued under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for taking possession of the secured assets.

¶22

The relief sought for in the SA is to set aside Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 21.06.2021 issued to the applicants under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and Annexure-A3 possession notice dated 13.01.2022 issued under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶23

Pending the SA, the defendant bank filed a memo before the Tribunal on 28.09.2022 stating that they are not intending to proceed further with Annexure-A1 demand notice and Annexure-A3 possession notice and withdrawing the said notices and hence it is prayed to dispose of the SA on the basis of the memo filed by them, reserving their right to initiate fresh proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

¶24

On careful consideration of the submissions and the materials available on record, it appears that this SA was filed by the applicants challenging Annexures-A1 and A3 notices i.e., demand notice dated 21.06.2021 and possession notice dated 13.01.2022 issued to them by the 2^nd defendant. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant bank reiterated that the defendants are not intending to proceed further with the aforesaid notices and they are withdrawing the same. The learned counsel

¶25

SA 85/2022

¶26

¶27

appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants have no objection in disposing of the SA by passing appropriate orders by the Tribunal.

¶28

In the above circumstance, the SA deserves to be allowed. Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 21.06.2021 and Annexure-A3 possession notice dated 13.01.2022 issued by the defendant bank are hereby set aside. By virtue of the powers conferred under S.17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal directs the 2^nd defendant to restore possession of the secured assets to the borrowers immediately without any further delay. The defendants shall be at liberty to proceed afresh with their SARFAESI measures in accordance with law. Since the SARFAESI measures initiated by the defendants resulted in debiting of huge expenses in the account of the applicants and as they opted to proceed afresh from the stage of issuance of demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, this Tribunal directs the defendants to give proper credits of such expenses in the applicants’ account forthwith.

¶29

Hence it is ordered:-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

In view of the foregoing reason, the SA is allowed. No

¶32

order as to costs.

¶33

(Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 19^th day of October, 2022)

¶34

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶35

SA 85/2022

¶36

¶37

Documents on the part of the applicants

¶38

Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	21.06.2021	Copy of demand notice issued to the applicants by the 2^nddefendant under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Annexure-A2	20.07.2021	Objection to the demand notice submitted to the 2^nddefendant by the 2^ndapplicant.
Annexure-A3	13.01.2022	Possession notice under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act issued to the applicants by the 2^nddefendant.

¶39

Documents on the part of the defendants

¶40

Nil

¶41

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶43

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

Dated the 19^th October, 2022

¶45

SA No.85/2022

¶46

Between

¶47

M/s.Kings Bakes, XII/1766, Moolakkada, Thekkady Junction, Kumily, Idukki – 685 509. & 2 others. …Applicants

¶48

And

¶49

Federal Bank, LCRD Kottayam Division, Thekkumkal Building, T.B.Road, Kottayam – 686 001, Represented by Branch Manager & another. …Defendants

¶50

F I N A L O R D E R

¶51

SA 85/2022 19.10.2022

¶52

………………… In view of the foregoing reason, the SA is allowed (vide separate order) . No order as to costs.

¶53

Presiding Officer

M/S Kings Bakes v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kings Bakes v. Federal Bank

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

Bank of Baroda versus Zulfikar Samnani

Icici Bank Limited versus Radha Krishna Gupta

Canara Bank versus Smt. Subhasini Tiwari

Kamal Construction Co. versus Indian Overseas Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Nihal Projects and Ors.

Vijay Kumar versus Union Bank of India