Dismissed

K Rajendran v. Repco Bank

DRT9 Nov 2022SA/91/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal challenging recovery measures initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Finding no infirmities in the Respondent institution's compliance with legal procedures for physical delivery and sale of mortgaged property, the appeal was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Application stands dismissed without costs; any interim orders stand vacated and pending IAs are closed.

K Rajendran versus Repco Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 91 of 2022 09.11.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 09^th day of November, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 91 of 2022

¶7

K.Rajendran S/o.Mr.Kaliyaperumal No.3, Siva Mayam Illam Villianur Main Road Murugambakkam Post Pondicherry – 605 004 ….Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer

¶10

REPCO Home Finance Limited No.40A, Ground Floor, Vivek Arcade 45 feet road Vallalar Salai Kamaraj Nagar Pondicherry – 605 001 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J.Bharathiraja & R.Saritha Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A.Ilangovan, B.Rajesh, R.Sindhu & G.Mahalakshmi

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the measures initiated by respondent financial

¶15

institution under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CJM, Puducherry, in Crl. M.P.

¶16

No.3466 of 2021, for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,53,713.28p.

¶17

No representation for applicant from the last 2 adjournments and today even during 2^nd round of call work.

¶18

¶19

S.A. 91 of 2022 09.11.2022

¶20

Perused records. Ld.Counsel for respondent financial institution has demonstrated the actions of respondent financial institution while initiating SARFAESI measures as contemplated under Sec.14 of the Act through the CJM. Ld.Counsel submitted that the account was duly declared as NPA as early as in 2014 since borrower did not remit any payment after availing the loan. It is also submitted that applicant has not caused any repayment even after approaching this Tribunal and continued his default. Ld.Counsel submits that, consequent upon the account being declared as NPA respondent financial institution has issued demand notice calling upon the borrower to discharge the debt due. However, as applicant did not choose to reply or cause any payments, respondent financial institution is constrained to issue possession notice which is duly served, affixed and also published in two newspapers as warranted under law. Ld.Counsel further submits that, owing to the continuous default of borrower sale notice also was issued subsequently, but however no sale has taken place for want of bidders. In their attempt to recover debt due by sale of the property respondent financial institution had approached Ld.CJM court seeking assistance for obtaining physical delivery of the property, so as to make their opportunities better, for realisation of their dues by sale of mortgaged property. Ld.Counsel further submits that respondent financial institution has followed all the procedures as warranted under law and that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent financial institution while seeking order from the Hon’ble CJM for obtaining physical delivery of the mortgaged property.

¶21

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent financial institution, while seeking directions for

¶22

¶23

S.A. 91 of 2022 09.11.2022

¶24

physical delivery of the property, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

Accordingly 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.

¶26

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶27

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

¶28

guidelines.

¶29

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 09^th day of November, 2022)

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

K Rajendran v. Repco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Rajendran v. Repco 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

K Ravikumar versus India Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Mrs Malika Sr versus Indian Bank

Sharon christabel Packiamuthju versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Ms Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill prop Mr Selvanathan Mr Krishnasamy versus Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus M s M a K Exports

M Prasanth versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.