Dismissed

M Deepa v. State Bank of India

DRT10 Mar 2023SA/296/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's SARFAESI application challenging recovery measures initiated by the respondent bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court held the application infructuous as the applicant admitted no procedural infirmities.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application dismissed without costs. Any interim stay stood vacated and pending applications closed.

M Deepa versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.296 of 2022 10.03.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 296 of 2022

¶8

M.Deepa, W/o.Srinivasan, F4 First Floor (Rear side), Kalpana Flats, D.No.56/8, Plot No.568,Vinayagar Koil Street, Thenpalani Nagar, Kolathure, Chennai – 600 099. ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, M/s. State Bank of India, Maraimalai Nagar Branch, Plot No.20, Arignar Anna Road, Maraimalai Nagar – 603 209. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.R.Hemkumar & M.Gopi. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.T.Kamala Kannan.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under

¶15

Section 14 of SARFAESI Act pursuant to the order of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl. M.P. No.370 of 2022 dated 10.06.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,67,605/- from applicant.

¶16

Respondent bank, who was on caveat, had filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing the actions taken by them under the Act.

¶17

¶18

S.A.296 of 2022 10.03.2023

¶19

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. Ld. Counsel for applicant fairly admitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank and that they are making attempts to settle the loan account under OTS. Thus submitting Ld. Counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶20

As applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while initiating action under SARFAESI Act, the present SA had become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

In the result, this SA is dismissed, however without costs. Interim stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶22

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶23

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

¶24

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 10^th day of March, 2023)

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

M Deepa v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Deepa v. State Bank of India

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

M s City Union Bank Limited versus M s Mohith Chemicals

Venkatesan S versus Union Bank of India

Amutha versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Idbi Bank versus Sasikala

M s Indostar Capital Finance Ltd. versus M s M R Garden Services Pvt. Ltd.

South Indian Bank versus Thavaselvi Ashokan