Dismissed

Mr P Venkatesan So Perumal v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT22 Sept 2023SA/448/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Final Order dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a borrower challenging Section 14 proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the bank's action finding a valid security interest via deposit of title deeds and service of the demand notice.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; all pending Inter Applications closed; no cost awarded.

Mr P Venkatesan So Perumal versus Equitas Small Finance Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of September, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No.448 of 2022

¶6

Mr. P. Venkatesan Son of Perumal Residing at No.54 Kuzhanthai Eswaran Kovil Street Kodanagar, Cheyyar Taluk Tiruvannamalai District – 604 407 …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited (Equitas Housing Finance Limited merged with Equitas Finance Limited and renamed as Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited) No.769, Spencer Plaza, 4^th Floor Phase-2, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 Represented by its Authorised Officer Mr. G. Boopalan …Respondent Counsel for Applicant : M/s J. Arul Prakasam Counsel for Respondent : Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan

¶9

FINAL ORDER

¶10

This Securitization Application in short SA is filed by the applicant challenging the measures taken by the respondent leading to the procurement of orders under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (SARFAESI Act), herein after been referred as SARFAESI Act or the Act as the case be.

¶11

The applicant is doing a carpentry work and that the applicant admitted to have availed a housing loan from the respondent and had been making repayments promptly. Even as the applicant is contending about prompt payments, the applicant is also admitting that there occurred some defaults in

¶12

¶13

repayments. It is also contented by the applicant that the Authorized officer had without following the procedure initiated proceedings u/s 14 before the CJM Tiruvannamali and obtained the impugned order. The applicant apart from not admitting the creation of security interest is contending that there is no service of demand notice.

¶14

In the grounds to the SA also, the applicant is reiterating the contention that the NPA classification is not in accordance with statute and that none of the statutory notices are issued by the respondent. It is also stated that the remittances made by the applicant is not duly given credit to.

¶15

The respondent entered appearance and filed their counter. The respondent had specifically denied the contentions of the applicant as to non-existence of Security Interest. It is also stated that the only as the repayments had been defaulted the loan account was duly classified as NPA. The respondent further contents that there is no procedural flaws in any of the measures leading to the impugned order.

¶16

The respondent had also produced the documentary evidence proving compliance of Rule 3, 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides and considered the rival contentions. The only issue that arise for consideration in this matter is as to whether the measures taken by the respondent leading to Section 14 are in accordance with the procedure or not.

¶18

¶19

The applicant though is admitting the availment of credit facility is not admitting the creation of security interest. In order to establish the existence of security interest the respondent had produced copy of the memorandum of deposit of title deeds which evidences that the applicant had created mortgage by deposit of title deeds.

¶20

The next contention as to the issuance of demand notice, along with the proof of despatch and postal track evidencing the service on the borrowers. The documents so produced by the respondent evidences that the contentions of the applicant as to the alleged non-service of demand notice is to be rejected.

¶21

Though the respondent had produced the proof of compliance of Rule 8(1) and 8(2) the same were not gone into as it is no more res integra that the issue of possession notice is not a prerequisite for measures u/s.14.

¶22

No other contention had been raised by the applicant against the measures.

¶23

In view of the finding entered herein before it could be safely concluded that there is no merit in the SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

In the result TSA 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.

¶25

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22^nd day of September, 2023)

¶26

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

¶27

Mr P Venkatesan So Perumal v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr P Venkatesan So Perumal 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

Mrs S Saroja versus State Bank of India

S Paldurai versus Canara Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s.Sun Traders

A C Velmurugan versus City Union Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. v. Ammani

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Panneerselvam