Dismissed

C Kuppusamy v. Repco Bank

DRT16 Aug 2023SA/221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai dismissed the Save Application challenging a possession notice issued by the Respondent Financial Institution for recovery of dues under the SARFAESI Act, finding no tenable merit in the applicants complaint of procedural irregularities.

What did the court decide?

SANA application dismissed without costs; interim orders vacated; liberty granted to applicants to seek amicable settlement.

C Kuppusamy versus Repco Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 221 of 2022 16.08.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 16^th day of August, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 221 of 2022

¶7

1. Mr.C.Kuppusamy

¶8

S/o G.Chinnappa No.70, Palliyaraikuppam, Thiruthanigai Nagar Kadambattur Post

¶9

Tiruvallur Taluk – 631 203

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Mr.C.Kuppusamy

¶12

S/o G.Chinnappa Integral Coach Factory Villivakkam Chennai – 600 038

¶13

Also at:

¶14

Mr.C.Kuppusamy

¶15

S/o G.Chinnappa Plot No.446, Palliyaraikuppam Thiruthanigai Nagar Kadambattur Thiruvallur – 631 203

¶16

2. Mrs.K.Porkodi

¶17

W/o C.Kuppusamy No.70, Palliyaraikuppam, Thiruthanigai Nagar Kadambattur Post Tiruvallur Taluk – 631 203

¶18

Also at: Mrs.K.Porkodi W/o C.Kuppusamy Plot No.446, Palliyaraikuppam Thiruthanigai Nagar Kadambattur Thiruvallur – 631 203

¶19

¶20

S.A. 221 of 2022 16.08.2023

¶21

3. Mr.D.Rajkumar S/o T.Duraikumar No.14, Parthasarathy Street Agaram Chennai – 600 082

¶22

Also at: Mr.D.Rajkumar S/o T.Duraikumar Technician – Mechanical Plot No.446, Palliyaraikuppam Thiruthanigai Nagar Integral Coach Factory Villivakkam Chennai – 600 038

¶23

… Applicants

¶24

Vs.

¶25

The Authorised officer

¶26

REPCO Home Finance Limited REPCO Towers No.33, North Usman Road T.Nagar Chennai – 600 017 … Respondent

¶27

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶28

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. C.K.M.Appaji, A.Stephen, P.Murthy & P.Sonu Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A.Ilangovan, B.Rajesh, R.Sindhu & G.Mahalakshmi

¶29

ORDER

¶30

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 15.03.2022 issued by

¶31

respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,67,892/- from applicants.

¶32

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶33

It is the case of applicants that they intend to negotiate with respondent financial institution for an amicable settlement, but however could not do so for want of funds. Applicants intend to regularise their loan account by paying the overdue amounts and in

¶34

¶35

S.A. 221 of 2022 16.08.2023

¶36

fact had already paid a sum of Rs.3.5 Lakhs to the credit of their loan account after approaching this Tribunal while the amount outstanding claimed in the impugned possession notice dated 15.03.2022 is only in a sum of Rs.10,67,892/-Applicants intend to make substantial payments, but were unable to, owing to several reasons which they were unable to get over. Ld.Counsel submitted that applicants could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned possession notice dated 15.03.2022. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.

¶37

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent financial institution had filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions, while issuing the impugned possession notice dated 15.03.2022, copies of which are duly served on the Ld.Counsel for applicants. It is submitted on behalf of respondent financial institution that it has followed all the procedures as warranted under law and except for the compliance of interim condition imposed by this Tribunal, applicants had already availed substantial time before this Hon’ble court on the guise of approaching respondent financial institution either for regularising the loan account or for discharge through an OTS. Ld.Counsel for respondent financial institution submits that applicants had never approached respondent financial institution, while they were continuously promising to approach respondent financial institution when the over dues were to the tune of Rs.1.5 Lakhs which now swelled to a little over Rs.2.12 lakhs for regularisation of the loan account. In the absence of applicants causing the payment, the outstanding would be increasing and ultimately, respondent financial institution will be constrained to proceed further under SARFAESI to recover their dues. Ld.Counsel for respondent financial institution submits that, the

¶38

¶39

S.A. 221 of 2022 16.08.2023

¶40

procedure adopted by the respondent financial institution has been demonstrated in the earlier adjournments and applicants could not make out any infirmities even after the counter and typed set of documents are filed and therefore submits that their actions are in accordance to law and prayed for appropriate orders.

¶41

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by respondent financial institution while issuing the impugned possession notice dated 15.03.2022, there are no tenable merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

Accordingly SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶43

Liberty be with applicants to approach respondent financial institution for an amicable settlement either for regularization or for total closure in terms of their submissions caused before the bench. Respondent financial institution will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law if the default of the borrower continues.

¶44

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶45

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

¶46

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed through e-drt, on this the 16^th day of August, 2023)

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶49

PRESIDING OFFICER

C Kuppusamy v. Repco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Kuppusamy v. Repco 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

Aruna Constructions versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus Nishanraj

K Lalitha versus Punjab National Bank

Ravanan versus Sundaram Home Finance Limited

M/s Annai Veilankannis Educational and Cultural Society versus Union Bank of India

Senthilnayakam versus Repco Bank