Dismissed

Renuka Devi v. Repco Bank

DRT12 Apr 2023SA/103/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A SARFAESI application filed by a debtor challenging physical possession measures initiated by a financial institution under Section 14 was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish any infirmity in the procedure followed. The court noted no merit in the applicant's claims regarding settlement attempts.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application stands dismissed without costs; interim orders, if any, stand vacated; liberty is granted to enter into a negotiated settlement.

Renuka Devi versus Repco Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 103 of 2022 12.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 103 of 2022

¶7

Mrs.Renuka Devi W/o.(Late) Mr.Dharmarajan Residing at No.7 Shelshiya Street Raja Annamalai Nagar Gorimedu Pondicherry – 605 006 ….Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer

¶10

Repco Home Finance Limited No.242, 244 1^st Floor Sinnaya Plazza, M.G.Road Pondicherry – 605 001 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Paul Britto Kumar & M.Sakthivel 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 institution under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry in Crl.M.P. No.1470 of 2021 dated 11.10.2021 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,19,26,964/-

¶15

Respondent financial institution entered appearance in SA and filed their counter

¶16

and typed set of documents evidencing the actions taken by them under the Act.

¶17

¶18

S.A. 103 of 2022 12.04.2023

¶19

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that her son who is engaged in pharma business of Homeo medicines under the name and style of Alex Homeo Pharmacy, had availed certain credit facility to the tune of Rs.41 lakhs on 31.10.2011 from respondent financial institution and offered the immovable property belonging to applicant as security for due repayment of loan availed. Though applicant’s son was regularly repaying the installments, due to loss in business, his loan account fell in arrears and her son deserted and left the family seven years ago. Subsequently, applicant’s husband also died due to Covid on 07.01.2021, which worsened the situation of applicant. It is the case of applicant that she had approached respondent with an offer of settlement along with a Demand Draft dated 01.11.2021 for a sum of Rs.15 lakhs to consider her proposal sympathetically. Respondent without considering the said proposal proceeded with their SARFEASI recovery measures and approached Ld. CJM, Puducherry for physical possession of the property. Applicant came to know about the said proceedings before Ld.CJM only when Advocate Commissioner visited the secured asset and directed applicant to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession of the secured property. It is further submitted that applicant is willing to exercise her right of redemption to save the property as it is her case that respondent will sell the property for a throw away price. It is incorrect on the part of the respondent in proceeding for physical possession, suppressing the facts that applicant is regularly making some payments and also regularly approaching the respondent financial institution expressing their intention to settle.

¶21

¶22

S.A. 103 of 2022 12.04.2023

¶23

Whereas respondent financial institution through their Counsel had put up appearance and filed counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that Respondent Financial institution has followed due procedure in declaring the account as NPA, issuing demand notice and possession notice. Possession notice dated 06.09.2014 was duly served on 11.09.2014 and was properly affixed in the conspicuous place of the property and was also published in two leading news papers (Times of India and The Hindu Tamil) on 10.09.2014. Considering the advanced age of the applicant and present family situation of the applicant, the respondent financial institution has given enough opportunities to settle the account, which applicant failed to do so. Since earlier sale notices failed for want of physical possession resulting in no bidders, the impugned order dated 11.10.2021 of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry in Crl.M.P. No.1470 of 2021 has been obtained. It is submitted that even after filing this SA, applicant has complied only with the first condition of the interim order dated 10.03.2022 and that second part is not complied with. It is further submitted that there are no merits in the contention made by the applicant and that the same is liable to be rejected in toto.

¶24

From the foregone submissions, it is evident that respondent financial institution has followed the procedure as warranted under law. Applicant could not make out any infirmities except for submitting that she has been undergoing multiple debacles and therefore required a sympathetic consideration of her loan dues which she intends to settle with the respondent financial institution. However Ld.counsel for respondent financial institution submitted that sufficient and substantial time has been granted to the

¶25

¶26

S.A. 103 of 2022 12.04.2023

¶27

applicant herein taking into consideration her issues, but applicant has only been taking time and not settling the outstanding dues.

¶28

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent financial institution while obtaining the impugned order from Ld.CJM, Puducherry in Crl.M.P.No.1470 of 2021 dated 11.10.2021, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

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.

¶30

Liberty be with the parties to enter into any negotiated settlement in terms of their undertakings before the bench.

¶31

With the above directions, SA stands disposed.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed through e-drt, on this the 12^th day of April, 2023)

¶34

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶35

PRESIDING OFFICER

Renuka Devi v. Repco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Devi v. Repco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kathiravan versus M s Icici Home Finance Ltd.

T Udayakumar versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Prasammamasakthi Sawmill versus Indian Bank

V Tamilselvan versus Union Bank of India

M Kanakavalli versus Canara Bank

K Palani versus Indian Overseas Bank