Disposed

K Senthilkumar v. Central Bank of India

DRT12 Oct 2023SA/175/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a Special Application (SA) filed under the SARFAESI Act challenging a Possession Notice. The court disposed of the matter because the applicant (borrower) settled the disputed account with the respondent bank via an OTS scheme during the pendency of the application, without awarding costs.

What did the court decide?

The Special Application was dismissed/settled with settlement of account by borrower, without costs. All Interim orders and pending IAs vacated/closed.

K Senthilkumar versus Central Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.175 of 2022 12.10.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 175 of 2022

¶7

Mr.K.Senthil Kumar, No.E-46, 15^th Main Road, Second Cross Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082.

¶8

Mrs.S.Ruba, No.E-46, 15^th Main Road, Second Cross Street, Periyar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082. ….Applicants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s.Central Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Hameedia Shopping Complex, First Floor, 108,109, Triplicane High Road, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.G.Desingu. Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s.K.Nazir Ahmed.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Suo-moto advanced from 08.11.2023 and taken up on mentioning made by Ld.

¶15

Counsel for applicant, as it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for applicant that matter is settled between the parties.

¶16

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 11.03.2022 issued by

¶17

respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,88,524/-.

¶18

¶19

S.A.175 of 2022 12.10.2023

¶20

A memo is filed on behalf of applicant submitting therein that during the pendency of SA, applicant had approached respondent bank and submitted a proposal for Special OTS scheme 2023-24 for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- on 06.07.2023, which was approved by respondent bank vide letter dated 13.09.2023. Accordingly, applicant had remitted the said sum of Rs.9.5 lakh towards full and final settlement. Thus submitting, Ld. counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶21

Copy of memo is served to other side.

¶22

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.

¶23

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶24

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 12^th day of October, 2023)

¶25

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

K Senthilkumar v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Senthilkumar v. Central Bank of India

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

MKaleeswari versus Bajaj Finance limited

B Leelawaathy versus Bajaj Finance limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Kamalesh Proprietor of Ms Ppraneel Carriers

Bank of Baroda versus Mradulla Gandhi

Canara Bank versus K Murugesan

Allahabad Bank versus Raja K