Dismissed

B Sankaralingam S Chitra v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT10 Jan 2023SA/141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application filed by borrowers against a bank's sale notice for auctioning secured immovable properties. The court found no procedural infirmities in the bank's actions as the applicants failed to discharge dues or challenge the process substantively.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Application is dismissed without costs and any interim stay is vacated.

B Sankaralingam S Chitra versus City Union Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 141 of 2022 10.01.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 141 of 2022

¶7

Mr.B.Sankaralingam S/o. Balasubramaniyam, Old No.17, New No.3, 1^st Street Kamaraj Nagar, Avadi, Chennai – 600 071.

¶8

Mrs.S.Chitra W/o. Sankaralingam Old No.17, New No.3, 1^st Street Kamaraj Nagar, Avadi, Chennai – 600 071. ….Applicants Vs. City Union Bank Limited Rep. by its Authorized Officer K.Dhiwakaran No.24-B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam – 612 001. ….Respondent

¶9

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s M.S.Asha Malini.

¶11

Counsel for Respondent : M/s AR.M.Arunachalam.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 15.02.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 30.03.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.22,46,720/-

¶14

¶15

S.A. 141 of 2022 10.01.2023

¶16

Perused records. It is the case of applicants that first applicant availed two mortgage loans from respondent bank in a sum of Rs.14 lakhs and Rs.8 lakhs respectively and offered the immovable propertiesbelonging to both applicantsas security for due repayment of loan availed. Though applicant was regular in repayment of loan without any delay or default, due to sudden loss in business, they did not have regular source of income to repay the installments, which resulted in initiation of SARFAESI measures by respondent bank. It is the case of applicant that respondent bank failed to reply / consider the representation of applicant dated 17.02.2022 in reply to Demand Notice dated 28.10.2021, that respondent bank without taking into account the payments made by applicant after issuance of demand notice had proceeded further with their SARFAESI action, that the upset price fixed by respondent bank is very low and incorrect, that respondent bank failed to publish the sale notice in newspapers in accordance to law.

¶17

Whereas Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that availing of credit facility, execution of loan and security documents and default committed are all admitted by applicant. Despite repeated requests, as applicant did not come forward to repay the dues, respondent had classified the loan account as NPA on 12.09.2021 and issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 28.10.2021 claiming a sum of Rs.21,79,934/- from applicant, which was duly served as evidenced from acknowledgement card filed along with typed set of documents. As applicant did not come forward to clear the dues even after expiry of statutory period, respondent issued Possession Notice dated 07.01.2022 which was duly served, affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured asset and published in two leading newspapers as warranted

¶18

¶19

S.A. 141 of 2022 10.01.2023

¶20

under law. Even after issuance of possession notice, as there were no payments that were forthcoming from applicant, respondent bank issued the Sale Notice dated 15.02.2022 impugned in this SA scheduling sale to 30.03.2022, which was also duly served, affixed and published in accordance to mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules made there under.

¶21

Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that the reply letter dated 17.02.2022 allegedly stated to have been sent by applicant fails to sustain for want of proof of service and that copy of such letter is also not furnished by applicant in SA. It is further submitted that applicant had complied with first part of conditional order however failed to comply with second part and did not make any further payments also and that sale did not take place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of first part of conditional order by applicant. Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent while initiating measures under Act and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶22

From the foregone submissions of both parties, it is evident that applicant had continued his default even after approaching this Tribunal and did not comply with his own undertaking to discharge his debt. Whereas respondent bank had established the procedure adopted while issuing the impugned notice through its counter and typed set of documents and Ld. counsel for respondent bank had demonstrated the same before the Tribunal, which actions are found to be in accordance to law.

¶23

As applicant could not establish any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while initiating action under the Act, this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

¶25

S.A. 141 of 2022 10.01.2023

¶26

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶27

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 10^th day of January, 2023)

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

B Sankaralingam S Chitra v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Sankaralingam S Chitra v. City Union 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

State Bank of India versus Krishnan

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Pushparaj

M R Bahavathiraj versus Indian Bank

City Union Bank Limited versus Chrome Sports Chromepet

Venkateswari versus Hdfc Bank

Canara Bank versus Mahadevi Pipes and Co.