Dismissed

Paul Radje v. Rbl Bank Limited

DRT8 Feb 2023SA/318/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SARFAESI application challenging a possession notice issued by the respondent bank was dismissed as the applicant failed to show any valid procedural infirmities in the bank's action under the Act.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI Application stands dismissed without costs.

What the court decided

Paul Radje versus Rbl Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 318 of 2022 08.02.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 08^th day of February, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 318 of 2022

¶8

Mr.Paul Radje, S/o.Andonissamy, No.33/17, Karnan Street, Mogappair West, Thiruvallur – 600 037. …Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer RBL Bank Limited, Legal Department Prestige Tower, Third Floor, 99 & 100, Residency Road, Bangalore – 560 025. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J.Prince. Counsel for Respondent : M/s. M.Arunachalam

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 02.05.2022 issued by

¶15

respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,53,745/-

¶16

Respondent bank had entered appearance and filed counter and typed set of

¶17

documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act.

¶18

¶19

S.A. 318 of 2022 08.02.2023

¶20

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicant that he availed financial assistance from respondent bank and was regular in repayment of instalments without any delay or default. However, owing to Pandemic Covid-19, applicant suffered loss in business and could not pay the instalments. Due to some irregular payments, loan account was declared as NPA during November, 2021 and respondent bank had issued Demand Notice dated 15.02.2022 under Section 13(2) of the Act, followed by the Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 02.05.2022. It is the case of applicant that the said demand notice and possession notice were not served on all the parties as required under law.

¶21

Ld. counsel for applicant submitted that affixture of possession notice was done on Sunday, as evidenced from the photograph filed along with typed set of documents, which is not in accordance to law and hence prayed for allowing the SA, in view of the said infirmity.

¶22

Whereas Ld. counsel appearing for respondent institution submitted that applicant as borrower along with Mrs. P. Tamilselvi, co-borrower had availed financial assistance to the tune of Rs.50,30,000/- and offered the schedule mentioned property by creating mortgage vide registered MODT dated 11.06.2021, which was duly registered with CERSAI. Despite repeated requests, as applicant and co-borrower did not come forward to repay the dues, respondent bank had classified the loan account as NPA on 05.02.2022 and issued Demand Notice dated 15.02.2022 under Section 13(2) of the Act, which was duly served on all parties, as evidenced from postal receipts filed along with typed set of documents. As applicant did not come forward to repay the

¶23

¶24

S.A. 318 of 2022 08.02.2023

¶25

dues even after expiry of statutory period, respondent bank had issued the possession notice dated 02.05.2022, which was received by applicant and co-borrower on 06.05.2022, affixed in the secured asset and published in two newspapers viz., ‘Indian Express’ and ‘Dinamani’ on 05.05.2022 in compliance of all the requirements of SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶26

Ld. counsel for respondent bank to the contention of applicant regarding affixture of possession notice caused on Sunday, submitted that inadvertently, photographs evidencing affixture of demand notice was filed as affixture of possession notice, as the notice in the photograph contains four pages, which pertains to demand notice, whereas possession notice dated 02.05.2022 issued by respondent bank contains two pages only. Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the subject impugned possession notice and hence prayed for dismissing the SA.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶30

¶31

S.A. 318 of 2022 08.02.2023

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 08^th day of February, 2023)

¶34

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

Paul Radje v. Rbl Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Paul Radje v. Rbl Bank Limited

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

C Janarthanan versus Union Bank of India

Mr S Purushothaman versus The a O Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd.

M s Bright Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Idbi Bank versus Devendiran

State Bank of India versus Amudha

Union Bank of India versus Subshini B