Dismissed

Dhakshinamoorthy and Deepa and Munusami and Thillaiyammal v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT15 Jun 2023SA/401/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an SARFAESI application challenging a bank's possession notice. Respondents admitted that the borrowers had regularized their account post-default by paying dues. Consequently, the Tribunal held the action not susceptible for prosecution at that time.

What did the court decide?

SA stands dismissed without costs; accounts kept on hold until default.

Dhakshinamoorthy and Deepa and Munusami and Thillaiyammal… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 401 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. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 401 of 2022

¶7

1. Mr.Dhakshinamoorthy

¶8

S/o. Munusami

¶9

No.6/83, Kundumedu, Puliyanthurai, Seerkali

¶10

Nagapattinam – 609 104

¶11

2. Mrs. Deepa

¶12

W/o Dhakshinamoorthy

¶13

No.6/83, Kundumedu, Puliyanthurai, Seerkali Nagapattinam – 609 104

¶14

3. Mr.Munusami

¶15

S/o Pakkri No.6/83, Kundumedu, Puliyanthurai, Seerkali Nagapattinam – 609 104

¶16

4. Mrs.Thillayammal

¶17

W/o Munusami No.6/83, Kundumedu, Puliyanthurai, Seerkali Nagapattinam – 609 104 … Applicants

¶18

Vs.

¶19

M/s. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

¶20

(Formerly known as Equitas Finance Ltd) Rep. by its Authorised Officer 4^th Floor, Phase II, Spencer Plaza, No.769, Mount Road Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002 … Respondent

¶21

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶22

Counsel for Applicants : M/s. L.Thiyagaiya, G.V.Bharathy, R.Vinayagamoorthy & Lavanya.S Counsel for Respondent : M/s. T.K.M.Sai Krishnan & S.Sharmila Devi

¶23

¶24

S.A. 401 of 2022 15.06.2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 17.08.2022 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,65,220/-.

¶27

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶28

It is the case of applicants that they had availed housing loan facilities from the respondent and were very regular in their repayment schedule. However, due to Covid19 impact, their income generation resources have been impacted, owing to which they fell in arrears in repayment of their loan. Ld.Counsel for applicants submit that notwithstanding the same, applicants had made deposit of the interim condition imposed by this Tribunal in two instalments and contemplated to regularize their loan account for which respondent bank had demanded yet another sum of Rs.1,13,000/-, which is also deposited with the respondent bank. Ld.Counsel submits that subsequent to the said payment, account has been regularized and applicants have been remitting EMIs in terms of their contractual obligations and in fact has remitted the amounts due for the months of May and June 2023 and submits that applicants shall continue to discharge the debt in terms of their repayment schedule. Ld.Counsel for applicants has contemplated to make some infirmities with regard to issuance of demand notice and the impugned possession notice which are all trivial in nature and are not having any impact on the procedure adopted by the respondent bank, calling for interference from this Tribunal. Even otherwise, since the account has been duly regularised and applicants are permitted to discharge the debt in EMIs, nothing survives in the present SARFAESI actions until there is default, yet again, by applicants.

¶29

¶30

S.A. 401 of 2022 15.06.2023

¶31

Whereas representative counsel appearing for the respondent bank, submitted that applicants had questioned the very mortgage itself and therefore they had filed the equitable mortgage duly executed by applicants herein, and registered, thereby establishing the mortgage in their favour for exercise of SARFAESI action. Ld.Counsel submits that owing to default of the borrowers in not making payments despite availing several opportunities, respondent bank has proceeded further under SARFAESI and got issued the impugned possession notice dated 17.08.2022. Ld.Counsel conceded that, consequent upon applicants remitting the overdue amounts to the credit of his loan account, his account has been regularized and therefore applicants are permitted to cause remittances in accordance to his contractual obligations. Ld.Counsel has demonstrated respondent bank’s actions through their counter and typed set of documents which are found to be in accordance to law and trivial issues contemplated to be raised on behalf of applicants are also duly answered submitting therein that the actions of the respondent bank while issuing the impugned possession notice are strictly in accordance to law. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.

¶32

In the result, as both the parties concede that the account has been regularized on receipt of payments from applicants by the respondent bank, the present SARFAESI actions are not susceptible for further prosecution and therefore are to be kept on hold. As respondent bank had established the procedure while issuing the impugned possession notice, to be in accordance to law through their counter and typed set of documents, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

¶34

S.A. 401 of 2022 15.06.2023

¶35

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. Respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law, if there is eventual default by applicants in discharge of his debt.

¶36

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed

¶37

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

¶38

(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)

¶39

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

Dhakshinamoorthy and Deepa and Munusami and Thillaiyammal v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhakshinamoorthy and Deepa and Munusami and Thillaiyammal v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

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

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

Arvinduja Motors Private Limited versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

J Thilagavathi versus Indian Bank

Sridevi versus Aptus value housing finance limited

A Ramaraju versus The Authorised Officer Incred Financial Services Ltd.

Yes Vee Brothers versus State Bank of India