Dismissed

K S Anand v. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

DRT29 Dec 2023SA/439/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged the possession notice issued by the respondent under SARFAESI Act, citing procedural infirmities, non-service of notices, and alleged non-registration of security interest. The tribunal found statutory compliance evidenced by acknowledgement cards and production of documents, dismissing the challenge.

What did the court decide?

Application discretionary petition dismissed; all pending interim applications closed; no order as to costs.

K S Anand versus Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II CHENNAI Dated this 29^th day of December, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

S.A.No.439 of 2022

¶4

Mr.K.S.Anand, S/o.Sivarudriha, No.1/18, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Kellamangalam, Denkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri – 635 113. … Applicant. Vs.

¶5

The Authorised Officer, Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Mathigiri Branch, New No.27, Old No.42/1, Ram Prabha Tower, 1^st Floor, Opp. to Dhanam Store, Denkanikottai Main Road, Shanthi Nagar, Hosur, Krishnagiri – 635 109. … Respondent. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.J.Prince. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.S.Prabhakaran.

¶6

ORDER

¶7

The above Application is filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest,

¶8

¶9

Act, 2002 (hereinafter been referred to as the SARFAESI Act or the Act

¶10

as the case be) with a prayer to set aside the possession notice dated 05.07.2022 issued the respondent.

¶11

The applicant who admits to have availed a financial assistance of Rs.40,00,000/- from the respondent is impugning the measures contending that the procedure followed by the respondent in their measures leading to the issuance of possession notice is suffered by procedural infirmities.

¶12

The applicant is admitting the defaults occurred in the account and is having no serious dispute as to the creation of Security Interest by way of mortgage, but have a specific case that the security interest so created is not registered in the Central Registry so as to make the respondent entitled to proceed under the provisions of the Act.

¶13

The next contention taken by the Applicant is that the demand notice is not served on the borrower as required under the Act. In respect of the impugned possession notice also, the applicant is having a similar contention that the same is not served on all the borrowers.

¶14

The next contention taken by the Applicant is in respect of the alleged capitalization of penal interest by the respondent. The Applicant is also expressing his willingness to settle the liability.

¶15

¶16

In the grounds to the SA also, the applicant is reiterating the above contentions. Along with SA, the applicant had produced the impugned possession notice.

¶17

The respondent entered appearance and filed their counter defending the legality of measures taken by them leading to the impugned notice. In respect of demand notice, it is the case of the respondent that the same is duly served on the applicant and guarantor. In respect of the impugned possession notice also, it is stated that the respondent had followed the procedure as required by statute. In respect of the alleged non-registration with the central Registry, the respondent contends that the creation of Security Interest is duly registered with the Central Registry.

¶18

Along with the counter, the respondent had produced the following documents:

¶19

a) Memorandum of deposit of title deed dt.29.02.2016.

¶20

b) Demand notice dt.14.02.2022 with acknowledgement cards.

¶21

c) Possession notice dt.05.07.2022 with acknowledgement card and returned cover.

¶22

d) Photograph evidencing affixture of possession notice dt.05.07.2022.

¶23

e) Paper publication of possession notice dt.06.07.2022.

¶24

¶25

f) Statement of accounts.

¶26

Heard the Learned Counsel for both sides. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶27

i) Whether the measures taken by the respondent leading to the issuance of impugned possession notice are in accordance with law?

¶28

ii) Whether the respondent had registered the Security Interest with Central Registry so as to entitle them to initiate the measures?

¶29

Both these issue are gone into and decided together.

¶30

The applicant has no serious dispute as to the creation of security, defaults and availment of credit facility. The main contention of the applicant as to the non-service of demand notice and possession notice is successfully rebutted by the respondent by producing the acknowledgement card of the demand notice. The above documents proved the statutory compliance of Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

¶31

In view of discussions and findings as entered above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is due compliance of mandate of

¶32

¶33

statute and there is no merit in the SA and the same is liable to be

¶34

dismissed.

¶35

In the result SA No.439/2022 stands dismissed. All pending IA’s stands closed no orders as to cost. Issue copies in accordance with Rule 16 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (procedure) Rules 1993.

¶36

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 29^th day of December, 2023)

¶37

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶38

K S Anand v. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K S Anand v. Shriram Transport Finance Company 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

Indian Overseas Bank versus R.Ramesh

M/s Canara Bank Erstwhile M/s Syndicate Bank versus T.R. Saravanan

Deutsche Bank Ag versus Kothari Bath Concepts

State Bank of India versus Venkatasamy

Bank of Baroda, versus Mrs. R. Subbulakshmi

State Bank of India versus Mrs.a.Kumari