Dismissed

Mr G Karthikeyan v. South Indian Bank

DRT21 Dec 2023SA/292/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession notice issued under SARFAESI proceedings. The court found no infirmities in the bank's procedure. It allowed applicants time to approach the bank for settlement by January 31, 2024, permitting further enforcement if the default continued.

What did the court decide?

Possession notice upheld. Applicants allowed to approach bank for settlement by 31.01.2024. Bank can proceed further if default continues beyond 01.02.2024.

Mr G Karthikeyan versus South Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.No.292 of 2022 21.12.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 292 of 2022

¶7

1. Mr.G.Karthikeyan S/o Govindasamy No.3/148, Mela Street Cholampettai, Mayiladuthurai Tamil Nadu – 609 001

¶8

2. R.Chandrasekaran S/o V.Ramu No.23, 4^th Cross Bharathidasan Street Lalbahadur Nagar Mayiladuthurai – 609 001

¶9

3. Mrs.K.Malika W/o Kirubanidhi No.5-230-2 Amman Nagar, Gegalnayakanpatty Salem – 636 201

¶10

4. Mrs.A.Dhanamani W/o Anbazhagan No.38/98, Thattara Street Mayiladuthurai – 609 001 …. Applicants

¶11

¶12

1. The Authorized Officer M/s.South Indian Bank Limited RO – Madurai, First Floor YMCA Building, 70 Feet Road Ellis Nagar, Madurai South Opp.Astoria Hotels Madurai – 625 016

¶13

2. Mr.R.Udayakumar Proprietor of M/s.KGR Vijayalakshmi Agencies No.61/159, Pasupathi Street Kornad, Mayiladuthurai – 609 001 …. Respondents

¶14

¶15

S.A.No.292 of 2022 21.12.2023

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicants : M/s J.Arun Prasad Counsel for 1^st respondent : M/s Ananda Gomathy

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 06.06.2022 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,29,66,989.51p.

¶20

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for both the parties. Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is ready and willing to approach respondent for a negotiated settlement and prayed for granting time for arriving at settlement.

¶21

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that respondent had followed the procedures as contemplated under the Act which is evidenced through the typed set of documents filed along with counter and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶22

In the circumstances, as respondent bank has demonstrated its actions while issuing the impugned possession notice through their counter and typed set of documents, which are found to be in accordance to law and that applicant could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted, calling for interference by this Tribunal, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

Accordingly, this SA is 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.

¶24

¶25

S.A.No.292 of 2022 21.12.2023

¶26

Applicants are at liberty to approach respondent bank and settle the loan account by or before 31.01.2024. Respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues beyond 01.02.2024.

¶27

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶28

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

¶29

guidelines.

¶30

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 21^st day of December, 2023)

¶31

Sd/- PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr G Karthikeyan v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr G Karthikeyan v. South Indian 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

Mrs S Vidya versus Indian Bank

Dhanraj versus Indian Bank

Union Bank of India versus C P Saravanan

Mohideen Abdul Razak a versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri Vasam Traders

S K Jeevanantham versus Indian Bank