Dismissed

Revathi v. Repco Home Finance Limited

DRT9 Aug 2023SA/30/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT Chennai dismissed the SARFAESI application challenging a sale notice. The court held that the applicant failed to establish any procedural infirmity, noting the failure of the One-Time Settlement (OTS) due to lack of funds. The applicant is permitted to approach the respondent for amicable settlement.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice upheld; application dismissed without costs; interim stay, if any, vacated; other pending IAs closed.

Revathi versus Repco Home Finance Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 30 of 2023 09.08.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 09^th day of August, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 30 of 2023

¶7

Mrs.N.Revathi W/o K.Narasimhan D.No.3/418, Plot No.21 & 22 Venkateswara Nagar, 18^th Street Kottivakkam Chennai – 600 041 ….Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer REPCO Home Finance Limited

¶10

3^rd Floor, Alexander Square No.2 (Old No.34 & 35) Sardar Patel Road Guindy Chennai – 600 032 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Prem Kumar & Adhitya.D Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A.Ilangovan, B.Rajesh, R.Sindhu & G.Mahalakshmi

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 14.12.2022 issued by respondent financial institution scheduling sale to 24.01.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,62,09,667/- from applicant.

¶15

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶16

It is the case of applicant that she had already entered into an OTS with respondent financial institution but could not complete the same owing to paucity of

¶17

¶18

S.A. 30 of 2023 09.08.2023

¶19

funds. It is also the case of applicant that she had paid substantial amounts out of the OTS agreed amount in a sum of Rs.1.52 crores, but however could not complete the same as they could not arrange funds for remitting to respondent financial institution. Ld.Counsel submits that they would like to approach respondent financial institution once again and prosecute their OTS proposals by negotiating afresh with respondent financial institution. Ld.Counsel submits that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date in view of compliance of interim order by applicants, although done belatedly. Ld.Counsel submits that consequently, the impugned challenge has become infructuous and that applicant may be permitted to approach respondent financial institution for settlement of their loan account amicably under negotiation.

¶20

Whereas Ld.Counsel appearing for respondent financial institution submits that respondent has demonstrated their actions through their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld.Counsel submitted that the procedure has already been demonstrated in their earlier adjournments, which was not rebutted by the applicant and that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent financial institution while issuing the impugned sale notice. Ld.Counsel submits that although OTS is considered on behalf of applicant, they could not pay the accepted amounts also within the time specified therein and also extended times, owing to which the OTS offer failed. Ld.Counsel further submits that the present outstanding is around Rs.2.2 crores and it will be open for applicant to approach respondent financial institution for any amicable settlement if they wish to. Ld.Counsel further submitted that as the very impugned sale notice has become infructuous in view of compliance of

¶21

¶22

S.A. 30 of 2023 09.08.2023

¶23

interim condition by applicant, there are no merits in the present application and prayed for passing appropriate orders.

¶24

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

¶25

Accordingly, this SA stands 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.

¶26

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶27

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

¶28

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 09^th day of August, 2023)

¶29

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

Revathi v. Repco Home Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revathi v. Repco Home 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

K Subramani versus Union Bank of India

I Kumari versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri P Sakthivel

J Porkodi versus State Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Rabs Infra

Indian Overseas Bank versus Aruna Construnctions