Allowed

M Barkathhulla and others v. State Bank of India

DRT28 Nov 2023SA/358/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a Sarfaesi Application challenging possession and demand notices. The order set aside the notices due to the inclusion of unsecured loans, restoring possession to the mortgagor and granting liberty to the bank to initiate fresh action on secured loans.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Demand Notice dated 13.12.2022 and Possession Notice dated 24.05.2023; restored possession to mortgagor; directed not to debit Sarfaesi expenses.

M Barkathhulla and others versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.358 of 2023 28.11.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 358 of 2023

¶8

Mr. M. Barkathhulla, S/o. Mamuth Khan, No.88-A, Balasubramaniyam Street, Marandahalli, Palacode, Dharmapuri – 636 806. 2. Mr. M. Abdulla, S/o. Mamuth Khan, No.88-A, Balasubramaniyam Street, Marandahalli, Palacode, Dharmapuri – 636 806. 3. Mr. M. Nazir, S/o. Mamuth Khan, No.88-A, Balasubramaniyam Street, Marandahalli, Palacode, Dharmapuri – 636 806. …. Applicant Vs

¶9

The Authorized Officer, M/s. State Bank of India, Marandahalli Branch, No. 28-A, Govt. Hr. Sec. School Road, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District, Marandahalli – 636 806. ….Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J. Arun Prasad Counsel for Respondent : Dr. T. Ramasamy

¶10

¶11

S.A.358 of 2023 28.11.2023

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the Possession Notice dated 24.05.2023 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,82,935/-.

¶14

A memo vide SR No.15014/23 is filed on behalf of respondent bank submitting therein that inadvertently unsecured loans have been included in Demand Notice dated 13.12.2022 and Possession Notice dated 24.05.2023. Hence respondent bank sought leave of the Tribunal to withdraw Demand Notice and Possession Notice, however with liberty to issue fresh Demand Notice and Possession Notice including only secured loans, in accordance to the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶15

Copy of memo is served to other side.

¶16

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for respective parties. Memo filed on behalf of respondent bank is taken on record.

¶17

In the result, SA stands allowed. Possession Notice dated 24.05.2023 and Demand Notice dated 13.12.2022 are hereby set aside, as the same is withdrawn by respondent bank. Consequently, possession is restored to mortgagor. Respondent bank is directed not to debit SARFAESI action expenses to the borrower’s loan account. However, liberty be with respondent bank to initiate action afresh in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶18

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶19

¶20

S.A.358 of 2023 28.11.2023

¶21

With the above directions, SA stands disposed.

¶22

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

¶23

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28^th day of November, 2023)

¶24

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

M Barkathhulla and others v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Barkathhulla and others v. State Bank of India

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

Uco Bank versus Rathna Stores Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus a Kumar

C Shameer versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Idbi Bank versus Mrs Jemeema Mathews Chittakkara

Mr Rituraj S o Bhawarlal Vaishnav versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Mr P Vengatesan Son of Sh Pandurangane versus Punjab National Bank