Mr Shailendra Kumar Sharma versus Om Kara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

It is the case of applicants that the principal borrower had raised an objection to the demand notice issued by the respondent bank and that respondent did not answer to the same thereby violating Sec.13 (3A) of the SARFAESI act. It is also the case of applicants that they are guarantors to the principal borrower who is none other than their son-in-law and who incurred severe losses in business resulting in closure of the same. It is the case of applicants that they had approached respondent institution seeking a valuation of the mortgaged property so as to enable them to pay the said valued amount for retaining their house property where they are at present residing. Ld.Counsel also submitted that notwithstanding the market valuation of the property applicants are willing to make a deposit of Rs.2.5 crores with the respondent institution for redemption of the property and also in discharge of the claim of respondent.

¶27

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent submits that, borrower or the applicants should approach the respondent institution with their proposal if at all they are intending to redeem their property and as of now respondent has not obtained any valuation since the matter is still in the stage of possession notice. Ld.Counsel further submits that respondent had issued reply to the objection letter raised by the principal borrower and has annexed the said reply in their type set, although the said principal borrower is not before this Tribunal and that applicants as guarantors had never raised any objections to the demand notice which fact disentitles them to raise such a plea in this challenge.

¶28

Ld.Counsel submits that applicants will be at liberty to approach respondent institution with any proposal for settlement and may also cause payment in terms of

¶29

3

¶30

S.A. 203 of 2022 15.02.2023

¶31

their undertaking. Ld.Counsel submits that respondent has followed all the procedures as warranted under law and therefore there are no infirmities in the present SA.

¶32

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent institution while issuing the impugned possession notice, there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent and hence this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Accordingly SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Liberty be with applicants to approach respondent institution for settlement and in any case not later than 15.03.2023, failing which respondent institution will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law. Respondent institution is also directed to furnish valuation report of the property by or before 28.02.2023 and handover the same to applicants herein while applicants will also be at liberty to obtain their own valuation report for the property or in the alternative deposit the admitted amount of Rs.2.5 crores (whichever is higher) for redemption of their property. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶34

8. With the above directions, this SA stands disposed

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 15^th day of February, 2023)

¶37

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

Mr Shailendra Kumar Sharma v. Om Kara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Shailendra Kumar Sharma v. Om Kara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

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

G Sathishkumar versus Idbi Bank

M s Rida Estates Private Limited versus Icici Bank Limited

M s Ansar Stores versus M s India Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Mrs Suba Ravikumar versus Axis Bank

Natarajan versus Indian Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Mr T N Satyanarayana S o Thillai Natarajan M S Satya Forgings and Agencies versus Canara Bank