Dismissed

B Suresh v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT23 Jun 2023SA/1/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession notice issued by a bank. The tribunal held that no procedural infirmities were made out, allowing the applicant time to settle dues but denying the relief sought.

What did the court decide?

Allowable eight weeks to sell non-mortgaged property to discharge debt before the bank proceeds further. Application dismissed; interim stay vacated.

B Suresh versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA 01/2022

23.06.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

S.A. No. 01 of 2022

¶8

(Final order dated 31.05.2023 is amended vide order in MA No.93/23 in SA No.01/2022 dated 23.06.2023 and following corrigendum order is issued)

¶9

Sh. B. Suresh, S/o Late Balasundaram, Old D.No.1/124, New D.135, Kalavi Street, Govindavadi Village, Kancheepuram – 631 502

¶10

….Applicant

¶11

– Vs. –

¶12

The Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, Kancheepuram Branch, No.40A, Vanigar Street, Kancheepuram – 631 501 …..Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P. Murugan Counsel for Respondent : M/s. K.N. Chinnakrishnan, E. Kumar

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the Possession Notice dated

¶17

23.11.2021 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,96,354.27p due as on 31.10.2021 from applicant.

¶18

Respondent bank entered appearance and filed counter and typed set of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act.

SA 01/2022

23.06.2023

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicant that he and his wife had availed two different facilities from respondent bank and mortgaged common property as security for due discharge of both the loan accounts. Ld. Counsel for applicant submit that during the pendency of this SA, filed by the husband, wherein interim condition is complied upon and stay is in force against the said property, respondent bank had issued yet another possession notice against the same property claiming the dues from wife as if it is a different security available to them for the loan availed in the name of wife. Ld. Counsel for applicant submits that notwithstanding the infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank, applicant intends to discharge their debt due to the respondent by selling away non-mortgaged property, which is available with them and have already taken steps for the same. Ld. Counsel submits that four to six weeks time would be sufficient for applicant to sell that property and discharge the debt due to respondent bank and prayed time for the same.

¶23

Whereas Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent bank had submitted that respondent bank had followed the procedure as warranted under law while issuing the subject impugned possession notice and on the direction of this Tribunal has withheld themselves from any further action in view of the compliance of interim condition in this SA by the applicant. Ld. Counsel re-iterates that there are no procedural infirmities that applicant had made out for the Tribunal to interfere in the procedure. With regard to the description of property, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank has admitted that property described in the possession notice issued by respondent bank in connected SA No.94/22 filed by applicant’s wife contains

SA 01/2022

23.06.2023

erroneous description of Eastern boundaries as Plot No.5, when it has to be Plot No.6 and that Plot No.5 is the plot that is mortgaged in favour of respondent bank.

¶28

In the circumstances, as applicant intend to settle his loan account within a period of four to six weeks by selling away non-mortgaged property, applicant is permitted to do so in any case not later than eight weeks from today, failing which respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues. As applicant could not make out any infirmities in the present SA filed on behalf of husband, who is applicant herein, there are no merits in the SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Accordingly, SA stands dismissed. Interim stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶30

With the above observation, this SA stands disposed.

¶31

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

¶32

guidelines.

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court,on this the 23^rd day of June, 2023)

¶34

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

B Suresh v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Suresh v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Ganesh Traders No Na Stamp Vendor Street Perambalur versus Karur Vysya Bank

Suresh Tradersrep by Its Sole Proprietor Suresh Kumar versus Karur Vysya Bank

Thangavel Udayar versus Canara Bank

S Sandhiya versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Indian Bank versus Gandhinathan

Usha Shanthini versus Indian Bank