Dismissed

P Rajavel v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT16 May 2023SA/117/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application for default by both parties. The Applicant failed to comply with a conditional order for repayment, and the Respondent failed to file a counter. The Bank was directed not to debit possession notice expenses without proof of vires.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI application dismissed for default; Respondent directed not to debit possession notice expenses.

P Rajavel versus Bank of Maharashtra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.117 of 2023 16.05.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 16^th day of May, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 117 of 2023

¶8

Sh. P. Rajavel Pakkiri, S/o.Mr.Pakkiri, Plot No.126, Pearl Villa, No.A1, 3^rd Main Road, Porur Kundrathur Vijayam, Co-Operative Maha Nagar Phase – I, Land Mark Amarprakash Apartment, Kundrathur Village, Chennai – 600 069. ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Mount Road Branch, No.18, All Centre,Greams Road, Opp.MRF, Chennai – 600 006. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.G.Sanjeevi. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.T.Ravichandran.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 27.12.2022 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.69,21,324/-

¶15

Representative counsel for applicant is present and submitted that he is unable to get instructions from his client regarding compliance of conditional order.

¶16

¶17

S.A.117 of 2023 16.05.2023

¶18

This case was taken up on 02.03.2023, on which day applicant was granted interim order of status quo on compliance of 10% of outstanding amount within two weeks and interim stay on compliance of another 10% within three weeks thereafter and notice was ordered to respondent bank returnable by 13.04.2023. On 13.04.2023, AOS of notice to respondent bank was filed, however, compliance of conditional order not reported. Ld. counsel for applicant undertook to get instructions from his client regarding compliance and file memo during course of the day. However, no memo was filed as undertaken by applicant. Even today Ld. counsel for applicant is coming up with same representation.

¶19

M/s Shree Law Services, Advocates filed vakalat on behalf of respondent bank and representative counsel prays time for filing counter and typed set of documents. Despite receipt of notice on 13.03.2023 instance, respondent bank did not choose to file counter and typed set of documents till date and only vakalat is filed today.

¶20

Consequently, as both parties are on default, SA stands dismissed for default and non-prosecution, however without costs. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the possession notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account for not establishing their actions while issuing the impugned Possession Notice. In a situation, if they are not able to establish their vires while issuing the impugned possession notice, the same stands to be set aside and possession be restored to mortgagor. In case respondent bank is able to establish its vires in accordance to law, it may proceed further with their SARFAESI actions.

¶21

¶22

S.A.117 of 2023 16.05.2023

¶23

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all

¶24

other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶25

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶26

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

¶27

guidelines.

¶28

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 16^th day of May, 2023)

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

P Rajavel v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Rajavel v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

State Bank of India versus Mrs R Ayyammal

M S K Rameshraj versus Indian Overseas Bank

Canara Bank versus Mrs M Sellam

M s Ocean Healthcare Private Limited versus Canara Bank

Mr Hemant Khandelwal Son of Mr Kamlesh Khandelwal versus Indian Overseas Bank

Mrs Elavarasi versus Indian Bank