Dismissed

T Udayakumar v. Punjab National Bank

DRT19 Dec 2023SA/314/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application filed by a guarantor challenging an electronic auction notice. The court found the bank's procedure compliant with the Act and Rules, noting the applicant admitted no infirmities in a previous related challenge. The sale failed on the scheduled date, rendering the application devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application No. 314 of 2023 dismissed without costs; all interim orders vacated; pending IAs closed.

T Udayakumar versus Punjab National Bank — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

SA No. 314 of 2023

19.12.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 314 of 2023

¶8

Mr. T.Udayakumar,

¶9

S/o. Thukkaraman, Door No. 3/2, North Madavilagam Street, Sirkazhi – 609 110.

¶10

….Applicant

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Sastra Centre, Circle Offce Trichy, PNB House, Trichy-Tanjore Road, Kailasapuram, Trichy – 620 014. ….Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A.Periyasamy Counsel for Respondent : M/s. J.Arun Prasad

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 24.05.2023 issued

¶17

by respondent bank scheduling e-auction sale to 19.06.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,85,306.76p

¶18

Heard Ld.counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶19

It is the case of applicant that he stood as a guarantor for the Cash Credit facility

¶20

availed by one M/s Srinidhi Agencies, to the tune of Rs.12,65,547/- during the year 2014, and offered his schedule mentioned property as collateral security for due repayment of loan thus availed. It is submitted that borrower was regular in repayment

¶21

of installments without any delay or default, however due to their financial constraints,

SA No. 314 of 2023

19.12.2023

they could not repay the interest portion alone. It is submitted that borrowers have made several payments despite their difficulties, but respondent bank without considering the payments made, has classified the loan account as NPA and issued demand notice dated 13.12.2021 followed by possession notice dated 23.03.2022, which notices were not served on the applicant herein. It is the case of applicant that respondent bank proceeded further and issued sale notice dated 01.11.2022, which was challenged vide SA No.501 of 2022 before this Tribunal and the same was disposed on 11.04.2023. It is also the case of applicant that respondent bank has charged exorbitant interest and has levied penal interest on monthly basis. It is further submitted that applicant is ready and willing to settle the loan dues to respondent bank within a reasonable time period. But, however respondent bank without considering the same had issued the impugned sale notice dated 24.05.2023 fixing the sale on 19.06.2023, without following the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶26

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent bank had put up appearance and filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions, after serving copies on the other side. It is the case of respondent bank that due to irregular and non-payment of EMIs, applicant’s loan account came to be classified as NPA. Respondent bank initiated measures under SARFAESI act and issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 13.12.2021 which was duly served on 24.12.2021. As applicants did not come forward to clear the dues even after expiry of statutory period, respondent bank issued Possession Notice dated 23.03.2022 which was duly served on 26.03.2022, affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured asset and published in two leading newspapers as warranted under law.

SA No. 314 of 2023

19.12.2023

It is submitted that respondent bank after obtaining a valuation report on 27.10.2022 in compliance of SIE rules, had issued sale notice dated 01.11.2022 scheduling sale to 08.12.2022, which was challenged by applicant vide SA No.501/2022 before this tribunal, which was dismissed on 11.04.2023, wherein applicant themselves had admitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the sale notice dated 01.11.2022. It is further submitted that respondent bank had issued the subject impugned sale notice dated 24.05.2023 scheduling sale to 19.06.2023, which was duly served (as evidenced from the acknowledgement cards furnished in Pg.No.42 of the typed set of documents), affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured asset and was also published in two leading newspapers (Dinamani and The New Indian Express) on 30.05.2023 as warranted under law. It is also the case of respondent bank that sale has not taken place on the scheduled date, in view of compliance of 1^st part of conditional order by applicant. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by them while initiating measures under the Act and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶31

On perusal of records, it is observed that the date and name of the newspaper in which the possession notice was published is neither visible in the copies furnished in the typed set of documents nor was averred in the counter. The date column in respect of the paper publication of possession notice in the index to typed set of papers, is also left blank. However, as applicant did not raise any specific ground regarding nonpublication of the possession notice and since applicant themselves had conceded to the fact that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while challenging the earlier sale notice dated 01.11.2022, issued by respondent bank,

SA No. 314 of 2023

19.12.2023

in SA No.501/2022, the same is considered only as an irregularity and not as an infirmity.

¶36

In the circumstances as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice dated 24.05.2023 and even otherwise as no sale has taken place on the scheduled date, the present SA is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶37

Accordingly 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.

¶38

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to DD, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 19^th day of December, 2023)

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

T Udayakumar v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Udayakumar v. Punjab National 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

G Kannan versus Axis Bank

N K Rajasundaram versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Chan Basha versus Idbi Bank

Bank of India versus M/S Sri Sivasakthi Auto Ancillaries Madras Private Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sundaram

M s Sri Sheshasai Enterprises versus Union Bank of India