Dismissed

Hemanth v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT25 Apr 2023SA/157/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) dismissed a Sarfaesi Application challenging a sale notice. While noting the application failed for procedural inability to show infirmities, the Tribunal permitted applicants to negotiate a loan settlement within 90 days of a specified date, failing which the bank could proceed.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice stands dismissed without costs; Applicant permitted to approach the bank for settlement within 90 days from 10.05.2023.

Hemanth versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.157 of 2022 25.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 25^th day of April, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 157 of 2022

¶7

Mr.Hemanth S/o.K.Subbaiah Door No.15/8, Vedhachalam Nagar, Mamallapuram Town, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

¶8

Mr.K.Subbaiah

¶9

S/o.Karuppaiah Konar, Door No.15/8, Vedhachalam Nagar, Mamallapuram Town, Thirukalukundram Taluk, Chengalpattu District. ….Applicants Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Mahapalipuram Branch, No.22, East Raja Street, Mahabalipuram – 603 104. ….Respondents

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.B.Ramaratnam. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.Y.T.Aravind Gosh.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 02.03.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 06.04.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.24,39,519.57p due as on 02.03.2022 from applicants.

¶15

¶16

S.A.157 of 2022 25.04.2023

¶17

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶18

It is the case of applicants that they have been regular in discharge of the debt and also had cleared the Vehicle Loan, for which they had entered into an OTS with respondent bank. However, it is the contention of applicant that the hypothecation recorded in the RC book of the vehicle is not yet amended even after discharge of the debt and also the extension of the mortgage for due discharge of the debt contracted against Vehicle Loan has also not been released, although both issues are only formal in nature, respondent bank is yet to complete the same. Ld. Counsel for applicant submits that applicant is ready and willing to discharge his debt and has complied both the interim conditions of this Tribunal and would like to approach respondent for negotiated amicable settlement, in any case not beyond 90 days from the date of closure of this SA. Submitting so, Ld. Counsel has prayed for appropriate orders.

¶19

Ld. Counsel for applicant further submits that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of interim condition by applicants and on that count also, impugned sale notice has become infructuous.

¶20

Whereas respondent bank had put up appearance and filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions.

¶21

It is the case of respondent bank that there are over dues in the Vehicle Loan account and that there was no one time settlement arrived at between the parties, but however would like to verify their records, since the Branch Manager, who is also present in the Court hall, submitted that the said submission by applicant is not factually

¶22

¶23

S.A.157 of 2022 25.04.2023

¶24

correct. Ld. Counsel had also furnished the statement of account of the vehicle loan account, which is exhibiting an outstanding of Rs.78,000/-. Copy served on the other side. However, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submits that it would be open for both the parties to reconcile any differences in the statement of account and it would be advantageous if they settle the loan account within 90 days, as submitted by their Ld. Counsel.

¶25

Ld. Counsel for respondent bank has demonstrated their actions while issuing the impugned sale notice, in terms of their typed set of documents, which are found to be in accordance to law. It is also submitted that no sale had taken place on the scheduled date and as such the impugned sale notice has become infructuous.

¶26

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Liberty be with applicants to approach respondent bank for amicable settlement and also for respondent bank to execute necessary RTI document for discharge of their hypothecation, in the event the applicants had discharged the entire vehicle loan by or before 10.05.2023.

¶28

Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that 90 days may be reckoned for closure of loan account from 10.05.2023 instance, which is conceded to by Ld. Counsel for respondent bank.

¶29

¶30

S.A.157 of 2022 25.04.2023

¶31

Accordingly, applicant is permitted to approach respondent bank for negotiations and settle the loan account within 90 days from 10.05.2023, failing which respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues beyond that period. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶32

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 25^th day of April, 2023)

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Hemanth v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemanth v. Indian Overseas 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

State Bank of India versus Mr. K Surendra

Kirtikumar Jethmal Bafna versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Tusli Seed Farm

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Shri Goukul Ji Aahar

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Jwels and Gems

Bank of Baroda versus Megha Fabrications