Dismissed

Kathiravan v. M s Icici Home Finance Ltd.

DRT11 Apr 2023SA/382/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application for default non-prosecution by both parties. Consequently, the impugned Possession Notice was set aside, and possession was restored to the mortgagor, while expenses remained un-debited.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI application dismissed; Impugned Possession Notice set aside; Possession restored to mortgagor; Respondent directed not to debit possession notice expenses.

Kathiravan versus M s Icici Home Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.382 of 2022 11.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 382 of 2022

¶8

Mr.K.Kathirvelan S/o.Krishnamoorthy No.42, Mariamman Koil Street, Kundupalayam, Thattanchavady, Pondicherry – 605 009. ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, M/s.ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd., Unit No.1, Mezzanine Floor, GKM Arcade, 81, Ward-H, Block-4, 100 Feet Road, Near Indira Gandhi Square, Pudupalayam Village, Pondicherry – 605 005. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R.Sreedhar. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.P.Rajadurai.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 18.08.2022 issued by

¶15

respondent financial institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,30,650/- from applicant.

¶16

This case is posted today peremptorily for hearing the parties, as there was no representation on behalf of either parties ever since 06.12.2022 for the last four adjournments. Applicant, despite obtaining an interim order from this Tribunal on 16.09.2022 undertaking to remit 20% of the outstanding amount, did not comply with the conditional order. Hence SIAs 844/22 and 845/22 for urgent hearing and stay was

¶17

¶18

S.A.382 of 2022 11.04.2023

¶19

dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/- each payable to DRT and DRAT Bar Association. Applicant did not report compliance of that condition also.

¶20

Sh. P. Rajadurai, Advocate had filed vakalat on behalf of respondent institution on 20.10.2022. Despite availing several adjournments and despite posting the matter, peremptorily, Ld. counsel for respondent bank did not choose to file counter and typed set of documents to establish the action taken by them under the Act.

¶21

As both parties did not prosecute the case diligently despite posting the matter as last chance, SA stands dismissed for default and non-prosecution, however without costs. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the possession notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account as they failed to establish the action taken by them under the

¶22

Act. Possession Notice impugned in this SA is hereby set aside and possession is restored to mortgagor.

¶23

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

¶24

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶25

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

¶26

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 11^th day of April, 2023)

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶29

PRESIDING OFFICER

Kathiravan v. M s Icici Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kathiravan v. M s Icici Home Finance Ltd.

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

M Akilandeswari versus the South Indian Bank Ltd.

M Akilandeswari W O B Muthukumar versus South Indian Bank

Tikku versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

K Vinothkumar versus City Union Bank Limited

T Udayakumar versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Prasammamasakthi Sawmill versus Indian Bank