Dismissed

R S Suresh Kumar v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT6 Jun 2023SA/294/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This SARFAESI application challenging a possession notice was dismissed. The Tribunal observed no infirmities in the bank's actions and permitted the applicant a short time to discharge the debt before the bank could proceed further.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application was dismissed without costs; applicant granted until 31.07.2023 to discharge debt; bank given liberty to proceed if default continues.

R S Suresh Kumar versus Indian Overseas Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.294 of 2023 06.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 06^th day of June, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 294 of 2022

¶8

R.S.Suresh Kumar, S/o.Mr.R.Sugumaran, No.22, M.G.Road, Pattabiram, Chennai – 600 072. ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Sembakkam Selaiyur Branch, No.11, Ganesh Nagar, Velachery Main Road, Selaiyur, Chennai – 600 073. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Pradeepan. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.N.K.S.Rukmangathan.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 26.04.2022issued by

¶15

respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,81,467/-.

¶16

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for both sides.

¶17

It is the case of applicant that he had remitted substantial amounts to the credit of loan accounts, notwithstanding the compliance of interim order imposed by this Tribunal. It is the further case of applicant that he had availed two loans from respondent bank and are augmenting funds to regularize both loan accounts and also

¶18

¶19

S.A.294 of 2023 06.06.2023

¶20

since more than 50% of the impugned possession notice amount has been deposited with the respondent bank, they intend to approach respondent bank and seek regularization thereof, so as to enable them to discharge his debt in accordance to contractual obligations. Today a memo came to be filed on behalf of applicant submitting the above submissions and seeking one more opportunity to approach the respondent bank for an amicable settlement and discharge of his debt.

¶21

Whereas Ld. Counsel for respondent bank is present and is supported by the Branch Manager of the respondent bank branch. Branch Manager has submitted that this subject account of applicant has been declared as an NPA by Reserve Bank of India while conducting RBI interest audit and therefore it is not within the hands of respondent bank to regularise the loan account and that they have to proceed under SARFAESI for recovery of their money, if the borrower/ applicant is not able to pay the money forthwith. It is also submitted that respondent bank has established its procedures while issuing the impugned possession notice dated 26.04.2022, through its counter and type set of documents and Ld. Counsel for respondent bank had already demonstrated the same during the earlier hearings, which was not rebutted by Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant.

¶22

Memo filed today on behalf of applicants seeking regularization of his loan account in view of remitting 50% of the claim amount of the respondent bank has been duly served on the Ld. Counsel for respondent bank. The Branch Manager, who is present in the court hall has submitted that it is not possible for respondent bank to

¶23

¶24

S.A.294 of 2023 06.06.2023

¶25

consider regularization of borrower’s loan account in view of RBI declaring the account as NPA.

¶26

Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant has then submitted that time may be granted for six months to close both the loan accounts i.e., by or before December, 2023 and requested for passing appropriate orders there upon, for which the Bank Manager submitted that it is not possible for respondent bank to withhold its SARFAESI Actions for such longer periods and that it may be extended only by 30/60 days, if the Hon’ble Tribunal directs the bank to do so.

¶27

On further deliberations between the parties, Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that it shall be convenient for applicant to discharge one loan by or before 31.07.2023 and also it would be their endeavor to make some more payments to the credit of yet another loan account and ensure that both the loan amounts are duly discharged.

¶28

As both parties conceded that it is only question of time and quantum of repayment, that has to be discharged by applicants and acknowledged by respondent bank, nothing needs to be adjudicated in the present SA, since respondent bank had demonstrated their actions, which are found to be in accordance to law.

¶29

Accordingly, applicant is permitted to discharge his debt by or before 31.07.2023, failing which respondent bank will entitled to proceed further with in accordance to law. Liberty be with respondent bank to extend the time, if one of the loan is closed by or before 31.07.2023, as there was an express undertaking to close either of the loan

¶30

¶31

S.A.294 of 2023 06.06.2023

¶32

accounts by or before 31.07.2023 and seek extension of time for another account only beyond 31.07.2023.

¶33

In the result, as there are no infirmities that could be made out by applicant, in the measures initiated by respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned possession notice, there are no merits in the present SA and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Accordingly, this 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. Respondent will be liberty to proceed further with in accordance to law, if the default of the borrowers continues beyond 31.07.2023.

¶35

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶36

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

¶37

guidelines.

¶38

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 06^th day of June, 2023)

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

R S Suresh Kumar v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S Suresh Kumar v. Indian Overseas 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

Idbi Bank versus Saranraj

Bharathiraja versus Central Bank of India

Quick Sort(India) Private Ltd. versus The a O Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

R S Suresh Kumar versus Indian Overseas Bank

BVedhavarshini Minor versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Ms Starship L and L Project Logistics versus Canara Bank