Dismissed

Ms Baba Ready Made v. Canara Bank

DRT12 Apr 2023SA/215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to quash a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act, finding no procedural infirmity as notices were served via registered post, published in newspapers, and affixed to assets.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to quash the SARFAESI action and possession notice is dismissed.

Ms Baba Ready Made versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA 215 of 2022 [J]

DRT,PATNA

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer: Shri KaushalendraYadav

¶6

SA- 215 of 2022

¶7

1. Mis Baba Ready Made (through its Proprietress Smt. Ruby Devi) Wlo Sri Mithilesh Kumar Jha, Sadar Bazar, Near Bombay Hotel, Jamalpur, Munger 811214.

¶8

Smt. Ruby Devi, Wlo Sri Mithilesh Kumar Jha, Sadar Bazar, Near Bombay Hotel, Jamalpur, Munger 811214.

¶9

Sri Mithilesh Kumar Jha, S/o Late Suresh Jha, Sadar Bazar, Near Bombay Hotel, Jamalpur, Munger 811214

¶10

......... Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Recovery Section, Regional Office, Kapatanpara, Khushkibagh, Purnea 854305.

¶13

The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Munger Branch, Bari Bazar, Munger, 811201.

¶14

--respondents

¶15

Present:

¶16

For the Applicant : Sh. S.K. Srivastava, Advocate For the respondents Bank : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

¶17

Dated: 12.04.2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

1. Present application uls 17 of SARFAESI Act has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESI action taken against the properties of applicant alongwith the possession notice.

¶20

1. The brief facts of the case are that, the borrower availed Cash Credit Facility to the tune of Rs.18,00,0001- from the respondent bank. On default in repayment of the dues of the bank, the account of the applicant was declared as NPA. Subsequently, the bank initiated SARFAESI Action against the borrower and issued demand notice uls 13(2) dated 21.02.2021 calling upon the applicant to make the payment of RS.23,00,848.59. Thereafter, possession notice dated 02.07.2022 uls 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued. Aggrieved from the possession notice, this SA has been filed by the applicant.

DRT,PATNA

SA 215 of 2022 [JJ

1. It is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicants that on receipt of demand notice dated 21.02.2022, the applicant no.1 & 2 made a representation dated 23.05.2022 with the respondent bank but the same has not been considered by the bank as per his reply dated 01.06.2022. The said demand notice was not served to the applicant no.3. The possession notice dated 02.07.2022 issued u/s 13(4) of the act has not been served upon the applicants. The Possession notice has also not been published in local newspapers within the stipulated period. It is further prayed that the demand notice as well as possession notice may be set aside.

¶25

1. On the contrary, Id. Counsel of the respondent bank submits that due to default in repayment, the loan account of the borrower was declared as NPA. Subsequently, demand notice dated 21.02.2022 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued which was sent to the applicant through registered post on 01.03.2022. On receipt of demand notice, the applicant no.1& 2 submitted its representation dated 23.05.2022 i.e. after expiry of stipulated period however, same has been duly replied vide its letter dated 1.6.2022 and communicated to the applicant through registered post. Thereafter, the respondent bank proceeded further and took symbolic possession of the secured asset by issuing Possession notice dated 02.07.2022. The Possession notice was received by the applicant no.2 and for the acknowledgement she put her signature over the copy of possession notice. Further, the possession notice was published in two newspapers namely Dainik Jagran and Times of India on 05.07.2022. The possession notice was affixed on the secured assets. Thereafter, the bank proceed for auction sale of the property but same could not take place due to want of bidder, therefore, sale notice became infructuous.

¶26

1. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

¶27

1. It has been alleged that neither the demand notice nor possession notice has served upon the applicant. It has been further alleged that the Possession notice has also neither been published in local newspapers.

¶28

1. On perusal of records it appears the notice of demand dated 21.02.2022 was issued by the bank and sent to the applicants through post. The postal receipt as well as its tracking report is annexed with the CIA of the bank. Thereafter, the applicant no.1 & 2 submitted its representation dated 23.05.2022 which was disposed of by the bank on 01.06.2022. Further, possession notice was issued on 02.07.2022 and the same was received

DRT,PATNA

SA 215 of 2022 [J]

by applicant no.2 who is the proprietor of applicant no.1 and also wife of applicant no.3. Further, the possession notice was published in two newspapers namely Dainik Jagran and Times of India on 5.7.2022. The possession notice was affixed on the secured assets. Since the service of notice by registered post may be presumed at the usual time of delivery of registered post. In such circumstances there is no procedural infirmity on the part of the respondent in SARFAESI action..

¶33

In view of the above discussion, the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act filed by MIs

¶36

Baba Ready Made & Ors, with all pending lAs is dismissed with costs.

¶37

~ ~ ~"\ [KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶38

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 12THDay of April, 2023.

¶39

[KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer

¶40

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Ms Baba Ready Made v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Baba Ready Made v. Canara Bank

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

Sudhakaran K C versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Vantush Krishna Karnwal

State Bank of India versus Alka

Canara Bank versus M/S Dass Engineering Solution

Axis Bank versus Sanjit Singh

Smt Manchun Devi versus Canara Bank