Allowed

Mr Naveenkumar v. The a O Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

DRT11 Sept 2023SA/21/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application challenging a possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. It quashed the notice due to non-compliance with statutory requirements regarding advertisement and demand notice issuance.

What did the court decide?

Possession notice dated 22.11.2022 is set aside, possession restored to mortgagor, and expenses of the notice not to be debited to the borrower's account.

Mr Naveenkumar versus The a O Bajaj Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA No. 21 of 2023

11.09.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 21 of 2023

¶9

Naveenkumar

¶10

S/o. Soppa Kesavulu Plot No.50, Abirami Nagar Soorapathu Village Presently known at: Autolac Colony, 5^th Street Soorapattu Ambattur Chennai – 600 053. ….Applicant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Authorised officer, Bajaj Housing Finance Limited Branch office Unit No.804, 805, 806 5^th Floor, Delta Wing Raheja Towers No.177, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002 ….Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. B.Govindaprabhu Counsel for Respondent : M/s. M.Arunachalam

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This SA is filed challenging the possession notice dated 22.11.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.48,45,471/-.

¶17

Heard Ld.Counsel appearing for respondent institution. No representation for

¶18

applicant even during second round of call work and even during earlier adjournments.

SA No. 21 of 2023

11.09.2023

Ld.Counsel for respondent institution has demonstrated that applicant had availed loan funds from respondent institution and created security interest over the mortgaged property for due discharge of the debt. Ld.Counsel for respondent further submitted that applicant had committed default in his repayment schedule owing to which his account has been declared as an NPA.

¶23

As the default of the borrower continued demand notice came to be issued which returned unserved for all the three recipients owing to which respondent had caused paper publication of the same. Respondent relied upon the second limb of Sec.13 Clause 2 of the SARFAESI act, with regard to service of notice and submitted that the act contemplated only service by RPAD which is since complied. Borrower had willfully evaded the notices which returned with endorsement “addressee left without instructions”, owing to which respondent has caused paper publication of the demand notice in Business Standard and Makkal Kural. Ld.Counsel further submitted that as applicant did not come forward for settling their dues, impugned possession notice came to be issued, which also returned with the same endorsement from the postal department. Respondent financial institution had affixed the same and also caused paper publication in Business Standard and Makkal Kural and submitted that respondent has followed the provisions of law as warranted under the Act.

¶24

From the foregone submissions, it is evident that respondent has not established affixture of the demand notice on the schedule property nor had caused paper publication in a paper of wide circulation as warranted under the act. Similarly respondent also has not established that the impugned possession notice was published in a vernacular paper of wide circulation, which actions are not found to be in

SA No. 21 of 2023

11.09.2023

accordance to law. Respondent institution despite being put on notice about causing paper publication in a lowly circulated newspaper like Makkal Kural, has opted for the same paper to cause publication of the impugned notice and hence their actions are found not in accordance to law.

¶29

In the result, SA stands allowed. Consequently, possession notice dated 22.11.2022 is hereby set aside and possession restored to mortgagor. Respondent financial institution is directed not to debit the impugned possession notice expenses to borrower’s loan account. However liberty be with respondent financial institution to proceed under SARFAESI in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶30

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶31

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 11^th day of September, 2023)

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶36

PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr Naveenkumar v. The a O Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Naveenkumar v. The a O Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

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

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S Meenu Car Rentals Prop M Lakshmi

Canara Bank versus Venkatesh

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S Meenu Travels Prop R M Muthiah

Andhra Bank versus Shree Krishna Polystrap Pvt. Ltd. Rep By Aruvela Ramesh And Four Others

V K Balaji versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Ms Saaqib Leather Industry