Dismissed

Ms Ritty Departmental Stores Proprietor Mr Issac Ponsingh v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT7 Sept 2023MA/75/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a Miscellaneous Application filed by borrowers seeking a separate formal order under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the application was barred by limitation as the proceedings on 18.10.2013 were conclusive, and the request sought only an administrative formality without affecting substantive rights.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

Ms Ritty Departmental Stores Proprietor Mr Issac Ponsingh… — Service and Employment | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.75/2023 in TSA No.536/2023

¶2

07.09.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 07^th day of September, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

MA No. 75/2023

¶8

¶9

TRANSFERRED SARFAESI APPLICATION No.536/2023

¶10

(Originally filed before DRT- I, Chennai as SA No.162 of 2012 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TSA No.536 of 2023)

¶11

1. M/s. Ritty Departmental Stores

¶12

Rep. by its sole proprietor, H. Isaac Ponsingh No. 106, Velachery Main Road Guindy, Chennai – 600 032

¶13

2. Mrs. HILDA

¶14

W/o. Isaac Ponsingh 99B/1, Velachery Main Road Guindy, Chennai – 600 032

¶15

..... Petitioners / Applicants

¶16

Vs.

¶17

1. The Authorised Officer

¶18

Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank No.4, T.T.K. Road Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014

¶19

2. The Branch Manager

¶20

Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank No.4, T.T.K. Road Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014 …. Respondents

¶21

Applicant party in person : Mr. H. Isaac Ponsingh Counsel for Respondents : M/s. P. Tamilavel

¶22

MA No.75/2023 in TSA No.536/2023

07.09.2023

O R D E R

This is an MA filed before DRT – 1, where the matter was pending and later owing to change in bifurcation of jurisdiction, matter got transferred to this Tribunal and listed at the bench. The matter has been given dates for appearance of parties, while only the respondent bank counsel was present on 05.09.2023 and not the party who was appearing in person. A perusal of the record shows that the final proceedings on 18.10.2013 by this DRT (DRT-1) indicated that a separate detailed order shall be passed. However, pursuant to such note, there appears to be no formal order that has been passed in the SA. Nevertheless the order dated 18.10.2013 were conclusive by themselves and are given a finality to the lis pending between the parties, upholding the issuance of possession notice and denying the contentions raised by petitioners / applicants therein in SA No.162/2012.

¶27

However petitioner, taking undue advantage of the last sentence in the proceedings, has preferred this application which was obviously barred hopelessly beyond limitation for seeking any rectification or any further relief, pursuant to the orders dated 18.10.2013. Even otherwise, the only grievance of petitioner is not about the orders that are passed, but of a mere administrative act of passing a separate order and therefore the very MA itself is misconceived, mischievous and has only filed to harass the bank and waste the valuable time of the Tribunal. The prayer in the application is not calling for any determination of rights or obligations engrafted in the legislature to the petitioner herein, but are only touching upon an administrative issue, which has not been available in the records and which is only an administrative action. The detailed

¶28

MA No.75/2023 in TSA No.536/2023

¶29

¶30

07.09.2023

¶31

proceedings dated 18.10.2013 conclude the determination of rights and obligations of the parties while upholding the SARFAESI actions of the respondent bank and therefore nothing needs to be revisited once again. In fact, the expenditure incurred by respondent bank towards paper publication of the demand notice without causing affixture has also been dealt in detail and denied to be debited to the borrowers loan account, as borrower had admitted receipt of the demand notice by post.

¶32

Further even taking a lenient view of the present petition and directing the office to prepare a separate order in terms of the proceedings order dated 18.10.2013, no rights shall emanate on the present petitioner to agitate, since such a challenge is hopelessly barred by limitation and a fresh order by this Tribunal at this stage shall not cure an inherent limitation that has been exhausted by the efflux of time and therefore even on that ground the present MA is not maintainable. The petitioner could have had an opportunity to challenge the orders dated 18.10.2013, if this application is filed at that relevant point of time but filing the present application beyond limitation does not serve any purpose and hence the application is negatived.

¶33

Since the very petition itself is hopelessly barred by limitation and also not prosecuted diligently by the petitioner, despite posting the matter for several adjournments, the present MA is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Accordingly, this MA stands dismissed on costs of Rs.2,000/- payable to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund by applicants / petitioners herein. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶35

MA No.75/2023 in TSA No.536/2023

¶36

07.09.2023

¶37

¶38

With the above directions, this MA stands disposed.

¶39

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

¶40

guidelines.

¶41

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 07^th day of September, 2023)

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ms Ritty Departmental Stores Proprietor Mr Issac Ponsingh v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ritty Departmental Stores Proprietor Mr Issac Ponsingh v. Tamilnad Mercantile 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

Union Bank of India versus Mrs Maala Ranghan And Others

State Bank of India versus Gopi Reddy

State Bank of India versus K Sekar

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Aruvi Exports

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S Meenu Travels Prop R M Muthiah

Canara Bank versus Venkatesh