Dismissed

Sridevi v. Aptus value housing finance limited

DRT15 Jun 2023SA/326/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession notice issued by a financial institution. Despite observations regarding insufficient evidence of notice affixture and newspaper publication details, the Tribunal found no illegality in the procedure and allowed the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application stands dismissed. Interim stay, if any, is vacated. Pending IAs stand closed.

Sridevi versus Aptus value housing finance limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 326 of 2022 15.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 326 of 2022

¶8

1. Mr.S.Sridevi

¶9

Door No.18/282-1 18^th Ward, Solayaippa Setty Street Palcode Taluk Dharmapuri – 636 808

¶10

2. Mr.Sivakumar Door No.18/282-1 18^th Ward, Solayaippa Setty Street Palcode Taluk Dharmapuri – 636 808 … Applicants Vs. The Authorised Officer Aptus Value Housing Finance India Limited No.8B, Doshi Towers 205, Poonamallee High Road Kilpauk Chennai – 600 010 … Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicants : M/s. R.K.M.Suresh & Adhitya.D Counsel for Respondent : M/s. V.P.Parivallal

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 13.06.2022 issued by

¶13

respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,36,332/- from applicants.

¶14

¶15

S.A. 326 of 2022 15.06.2023

¶16

Respondent financial institution entered appearance and filed counter and typed set of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act.

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶18

It is the case of applicants that they had availed Housing Loan to the tune of Rs.7 lakhs from respondent during the year 2015 and was regular in repayment of installments. However, due to ill health of applicants and loss in their business, they could not remit their interest portion alone, resulting in classification of loan account as NPA by respondent institution and initiation of recovery measures. It is also the case of applicants that respondent financial institution failed to serve demand notice and without considering the payments made by applicants, had issued the subject impugned possession notice dated 13.06.2022, which was neither affixed nor published in two leading newspapers. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel for applicants prayed for appropriate orders.

¶19

Whereas Ld. Counsel for respondent financial institution submitted that applicants approached respondent financial institution and availed Home construction loan for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs and SME loan to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs by mortgaging the schedule mentioned property. It is submitted that applicants committed default in repayment of their monthly instalments as per the repayment schedule. Despite repeated requests, as applicant did not come forward to repay the dues, respondent financial institution had classified the loan account as NPA on 07.03.2022 and issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 16.03.2022 which was duly served. As applicants / borrowers did not come forward to clear the dues even after

¶20

¶21

S.A. 326 of 2022 15.06.2023

¶22

expiry of statutory period, respondent financial institution issued Possession Notice dated 13.06.2022 claiming a sum of Rs.6,36,332/- which was duly served, affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured asset and published on 14.06.2022 in two leading newspapers (English and Vernacular language) as warranted under law. Ld. Counsel for respondent financial institution submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by them while initiating measures under the Act and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶23

On perusal of records, it is observed that respondent financial institution has furnished photographs evidencing, only the presence of Authorised officer and not the affixture of possession notice, since nothing is visible from the said affixture. Similarly, there is no mention about which is the vernacular language paper that was published in, except for the relevant newspaper cutting which did not disclose the name or the date of the vernacular paper as being claimed by the respondent financial institution. There is no pleading with regard to the above observations either in the counter filed on behalf of respondent financial institution.

¶24

In the circumstances, respondent financial institution is directed to be more vigilant and is directed to furnish appropriate compliances, failing which adverse inference will be constrained to be drawn against the documents furnished before this Tribunal to avoid such irregularity, although not an illegality.

¶25

In the result, as there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent financial institution while issuing the impugned possession notice, there are no tenable merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

¶27

S.A. 326 of 2022 15.06.2023

¶28

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim stay, if

¶29

any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending

¶30

stand closed.

¶31

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶32

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

¶33

guidelines.

¶34

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me through e- drt, on this the 15^th day of June, 2023)

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sridevi v. Aptus value housing finance limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sridevi v. Aptus value housing finance 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

Sri Laxmi Timbers Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Arvinduja Motors Private Limited versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

J Thilagavathi versus Indian Bank

A Ramaraju versus The Authorised Officer Incred Financial Services Ltd.

Yes Vee Brothers versus State Bank of India

Dhakshinamoorthy and Deepa and Munusami and Thillaiyammal versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited