Dismissed

BVedhavarshini Minor v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT6 Jun 2023SA/425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a SARFAESI application, the Tribunal dismissed the plea of a third-party applicant claiming succession title to mortgaged property. The court held that banking actions were procedurally compliant and the applicant lacked merits to challenge the possession notice, though liberty to settle dues was granted to retain the share.

What did the court decide?

SA stands dismissed at per; liberty to applicant to approach respondent bank to settle outstanding dues if intending to retain share in property.

BVedhavarshini Minor versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.425 of 2023 06.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 06^th day of June, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 425 of 2022

¶8

B.Vedhavarshini, D/o.Late.L.Bakiyaraj, Rep. by Natural Guardian Mother, B.Kavitha, W/o.Bakiyaraj Late, No.5, Nalla Thambi Nagar, Nagarpalayam Road, Gobichettypalayam,

¶9

Erode – 638 452. ….Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M/s.Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Officer, 4^th Floor, No.769, Spencer Plaza, Chennai – 600 002.

¶12

L.Arunkumar, S/o.Loganathan, No.8/11, Perambur High Road, Mettupalayam, Perambur Barracks Road, Chennai – 600 012.

¶13

L.Padma, W/o.Loganathan, No.8/11, Perambur High Road, Mettupalayam, Perambur Barracks Road, Chennai – 600 012. ….Respondents

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.A.A.Venkatesan. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.K.V.P.Deepak Raj.

¶16

¶17

S.A.425 of 2023 06.06.2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 03.08.2022 published in newspaper on 07.08.2022 by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,49,132/

¶20

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶21

Applicant herein, claims to be the great granddaughter of the original purchaser of the schedule mentioned property. It is the case of applicant that pursuant to the demise of her late father, who is 50% share holder in the property, the same had devolved upon her by succession since it is her contention that her father passed away intestate. It is also further submitted by Ld. counsel for applicant that they are not aware of any loan availed against the security of the immovable property or that her father had created security interest over the property. It was contended on behalf of applicant that since her right is vested right over the property, and as she had no privity of contract with the respondent bank, for discharge of the loan, SARFAESI actions of respondent bank against the immovable property to the extent of her share are not sustainable under law and therefore the impugned possession notice dated 03.08.2022 of the respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,49,132/- is bad under law. Ld. counsel for applicant further submits that since she is a third party to the proceedings, no notice of the intended SARFAESI actions of the respondent bank are served upon her. Ld. counsel submits that only on the affixture of the impugned possession notice, applicant had acquired knowledge of the SARFAESI actions and immediately approached this Tribunal staking a claim over the mortgaged property under succession.

¶22

¶23

S.A.425 of 2023 06.06.2023

¶24

Respondent bank had put up appearance and filed counter and typed set of documents. Ld. counsel for respondent bank has explained the flow of title and submitted that the original purchaser of the property has settled the property in equal shares to his grandsons while only a life interest is created for his own son, who is the father of the two grandchildren. One of the grandsons’ had joined the father and executed Memorandum of deposit of title deeds in favour of respondent bank. Ld. counsel for respondent bank submits that the father, who had only life interest, had also furnished an affidavit stating that his son passed away intestate but did not disclose the existence of any legal heirs to him, while now only it surfaced that the present applicant is the daughter of deceased son. Ld. counsel also submitted that the second son did not have any children.

¶25

Both parties concede that the son of the executant of settlement deed, who was given life estate over the property, is no more and only the present applicant and the other son, who is unmarried, is available for claiming the property. Since respondent bank had got a valid security interest over 50% of the property, their SARFAESI actions

¶26

would survive and if there are claimants like that of the applicant, may be suitably compensated in the course of sale, if the debt is not discharged as yet.

¶27

Ld. counsel has demonstrated that the actions of the respondent bank are strictly in accordance to law and that there are no violations in the procedure adopted while issuing the impugned Possession Notice and therefore prays for appropriate order.

¶28

In the circumstances, as applicants could not make out any infirmities while issuing the impugned Possession Notice dated 03.08.2022 by the respondent bank,

¶29

¶30

S.A.425 of 2023 06.06.2023

¶31

there are no tenable merits in the present SA filed by third party applicant and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed. However, liberty be with applicant to approach respondent bank and settle the outstanding dues, if she intends to retain her share in the property.

¶33

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

¶34

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 06^th day of June, 2023)

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

BVedhavarshini Minor v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

BVedhavarshini Minor 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus Saranraj

Bharathiraja versus Central Bank of India

Quick Sort(India) Private Ltd. versus The a O Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

R S Suresh Kumar versus Indian Overseas Bank

R S Suresh Kumar versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ms Starship L and L Project Logistics versus Canara Bank