Allowed

Ganapathy Ram S v. Sundaram Finance Limited

DRT3 Oct 2023SA/296/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a SARFAESI application challenging a possession notice. The First Respondent withdrew actions citing part settlement, while collateral mortgagors claimed full repayment. Lacking documentary evidence, the Tribunal set aside the notice as the application lost cause of action.

What did the court decide?

Possession Notice dated 09.03.2023 set aside; possession restored to mortgagor; interim orders vacated; other IAs closed.

Ganapathy Ram S versus Sundaram Finance Limited — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

SA No.296 of 2023

03.10.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 03^rd day of October, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 296 of 2023

¶9

S. Ganapathy Ram S/o Late M. Subramaniam 17/29, Flat No.2A, Seven Hills Apartments Thangam Colony, 2^nd Street, Anna Nagar West Chennai – 600 040

¶10

….Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

The Authorised Officer,

¶13

Sundaram Home Finance Limited

¶14

No.21, Patullos Road

¶15

Chennai – 600 002

¶16

Rengarajan R

¶17

No.30/71, South Car Street Srivilliputtur

¶18

Virudunagar – 626 125

¶19

Mangaleswari R

¶20

No.30/71, South Car Street Srivilliputtur

¶21

Virudunagar – 626 125

¶22

M/s Lokaa Developer Private Limited Rep. by its Director Old No.9, New No.17, Ambadi Road Kotturpuram, Chennai – 600 085 ….Respondents

¶23

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶24

Counsel for Applicant : M/s C. Suraj Counsel for First Respondent : M/s K.J. Parthasarathy

¶25

Counsel for Respondents 2 & 3 : M/s Usha Ramman None for 4^th respondent

SA No.296 of 2023

03.10.2023

ORDER

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 09.03.2023 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,74,090/-.

¶31

Today a memo is filed on behalf of first respondent institution submitting therein that during the pendency of SA, borrower under Tripartite Agreement had settled part of the liability on 15.06.2023 and therefore first respondent is hereby withdrawing its actions under SARFAESI in lieu of payments made against the SA subject property and submitted that the present SA has become infructuous.

¶32

Another memo is filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 submitting therein that first respondent institution had issued mortgage release letter to respondents 2 and 3 stating that the loan amount has been repaid in full and no further amount is due to first respondent. Hence respondents 2 and 3 prayed for recording this memo and pass necessary orders.

¶33

Copies of memos are served on either parties.

¶34

On perusal of memos of both parties, R-1 submitted that part settlement is caused and therefore are withdrawing their SARFAESI actions, while R-2 and R-3 submit that entire mortgage is determined. Since neither parties furnished any documentary evidence in support of their contentions, no finding with regard to the same is made. However, as R-1 itself has withdrawn their SARFAESI actions, the present challenge suffers for want of cause of action.

SA No.296 of 2023

03.10.2023

Hence SA stands allowed. Consequently, Possession Notice dated 09.03.2023 is hereby set aside and possession is restored to mortgagor. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶39

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 03^rd day of October, 2023)

¶42

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Ganapathy Ram S v. Sundaram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapathy Ram S v. Sundaram Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

South Indian Bank versus Dhilip Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sri Devi Motors

M s Info Network Management Company Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Arumugam Son of Balasundaram versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

T Sathianesan versus Canara Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Ri Group