Disposed

Joseph v. Bajaj finance Limited

DRT25 Aug 2023SA/153/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The application challenging a possession notice was disposed of as the respondents bank had already issued a 'no due' certificate after the applicants settled the loan account via One Time Settlement (OTS). The court held the challenge infructuous and dismissed the application without costs.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application was disposed of without costs; interim orders vacated; pending Interim Applications (IAs) closed.

Joseph versus Bajaj finance Limited — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 153 of 2022 25.08.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 25^th day of August, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 153 of 2022

¶7

1. Mr.Joseph R.K.Selvaretnam S/o S.Rajaretnam D.No.4/222, Type 4^th Main Road

¶8

Sidco Nagar Villivakkam

¶9

Chennai – 600 049

¶10

2. Mrs.Cecilia Xavier Jyothi W/o Mr.Joseph R.K.Selvaretnam D.No.4/222, Type 4^th Main Road

Sidco Nagar

Villivakkam

Chennai – 600 049

3. Mr.Rajaretnam D.No.4/222, Type 4^th Main Road Sidco Nagar Villivakkam Chennai – 600 049

¶15

… Applicants

¶16

Vs.

¶17

M/s. Bajaj Finance Limited Rep. by its Authorised Signatory

¶18

Mr.Naveen Kumar 3^rd Floor, Bajaj Finserv Panchshil Tech Park Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra and at, 1^st Floor, SB Complex, W 115, 3^rd Avenue Opp.Kandhaswamy College Anna Nagar Chennai – 600 040 … Respondent

¶19

¶20

S.A. 153 of 2022 25.08.2023

¶21

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶22

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. Jerry V.V.Sundar Counsel for Respondent : M/s. N.R.Rajagopalan

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This SA is filed challenging possession notice dated 24.11.2021 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,16,40,905/-.

¶25

Today representative counsel for respondent bank is present and filed a memo vide SR.No.11499/2023 submitting therein that applicants had approached respondent bank and settled the loan account under OTS by remitting a sum of Rs.2,92,02,502/towards full and final settlement of the loan account. On receipt of the same, respondent bank has also issued no due certificate to applicant (copy of no due certificate enclosed). Ld. counsel further submitted that the present challenge to the impugned possession notice has become infructuous, in view of settlement by applicants. Submitting so, Ld. counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶26

Copy of memo is served on the Ld.Counsel for applicants. Memo filed on behalf of respondent bank is taken on record.

¶27

In the result, this SA is disposed, in view of settlement of account by borrower, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶28

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶29

¶30

S.A. 153 of 2022 25.08.2023

¶31

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

¶32

guidelines.

¶33

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me through e- drt, on this the 25^th day of August, 2023)

¶34

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Joseph v. Bajaj finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph v. Bajaj finance Limited

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 Saai Sharavanan

State Bank of India versus Om Sri Sidhivinayagar Agency

Canara Bank versus M/S Sukrithi Ventures

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Ms Jothi Traders Prop Mrs R Schitra

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Ms Aran Kitchen World India Private Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms S L Anandan Stores and Contractors