Allowed

Ms Arunachala Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director v. Vediappan v Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

DRT20 Jan 2023SA/45/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed an application under SARFAESI Act section 17(1) where the respondent admitted property boundaries were lost in translation between Tamil and English notices. The proceedings were set aside, costs awarded to the applicant, and respondent directed to reverse any debits.

What did the court decide?

SA 45/2022 allowed; impugned proceedings set aside; respondent directed not to mulct applicant's cost; applicant awarded Rs.2,50,000 cost to be adjusted at settlement/closure.

Ms Arunachala Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 20^th day of January, 2023

¶3

PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA No.45/2022

¶5

M/s.Arunachala Agro Products (Pvt) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, V.Vediappan, Kavandanoor Village, Mathur Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Krishangiri District. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Authorised Officer, Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., Reliance Centre, 6^th Floor, North Wing, Off. Western Express Highway, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055. … Respondent. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.G.Jeremiah. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.Ramalingam & Associates. …..

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

This application is filed by the applicant under section 17(1) of the

¶10

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

¶11

of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after called SARFAESI Act or the ‘Act’, as the case be) impugning the measures taken by the respondent leading up to the issuance of possession notice dt.17.09.2021.

¶12

¶13

The SA is filed contending that there is non-compliance of Rule 3A and the possession notice does not disclose the correct extent and boundaries of the secured asset. It is also stated that even the name of village is wrongly mentioned and properties which were not included in the demand notice were also included in the impugned possession notice. The applicant had also taken another specific ground that the schedule as shown in the possession notice is not in conformity with the documents and schedule mentioned in the OA 262/2015, which is filed by the assignor of the respondent, (i.e.) State Bank of India.

¶14

When the matter came up for admission on 18.02.2022, the respondent entered appearance and sought time to file counter. Thereafter, the matter has been adjourned from time to time for filing counter and ultimately on 20.01.2023, a memo has been filed by the respondent stating as follows:

¶15

“3. The Defendant submits that on perusal of the impugned possession notice, it came to the attention of the Defendant that the boundaries of the Schedule mentioned properties got lost in translation from Tamil to English language; i.e. the North boundary was translated to South boundary, and also the others in the same manner. It is an inadvertent error that had crept in the said notice. Hence, on 06/12/2022 the Defendant had withdrawn the previous SARFAESI notices, reserving its right to re-issue the same under SARFAESI Act.”

¶16

The applicant had also filed a memo in which they produced a copy of the communication dt.06.12.2022 sent by the respondent in this regard.

¶17

By virtue of above memos, it is clear that the contention of the applicant that the boundaries of schedule mentioned property as mentioned in the notices issued by the respondent which impugned

¶18

¶19

herein, is not in conformity with the boundaries of the schedule properties as per documents. The reasoning given by the respondent that same is lost in translation cannot be a ground to deprive the applicant, the relief as sought for in the SA. Especially as by said action, the respondent had compelled the applicant to rush to this Tribunal by expending the court fee and other charges. The applicant had made a remittance of Rs.50,000/- as fee for initiating this proceeding.

¶20

The only question that is to be decided in the SA is regarding the description of the property as sought to be proceeded against under the Act by the respondent. The applicant contends that the same is not in conformity with the documents pertaining to the said properties which now stand admitted by the respondent.

¶21

In the light of the above fact, this Tribunal is inclined to allow this SA by setting aside the impugned proceedings. It will be open to the respondent to re-initiate the proceedings if so advised. The respondent is directed not to mulct the cost of the issuance of the impugned possession notice on the applicant. It is made clear that if any such debit is already made, necessary reversals of the same shall be made forthwith. Since, the applicant was unnecessarily dragged to this Tribunal by impugned measures, the applicant is permitted a cost of Rs.2,50,000/- which is to be adjusted at the time of settlement or closure of the account by the respondent.

¶22

¶23

In the result, SA 45/2022 stands allowed with the above directions. All pending IAs stands closed. Issue copies in accordance

¶24

with Rule 16 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1983.

¶25

( Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 20^th day of January, 2023 )

¶26

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

Ms Arunachala Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director v. Vediappan v Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Arunachala Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director v. Vediappan v Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

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

ganesh versus Indian Bank

Ganesh General Merchant versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus M/s Pioneer industries and Trading Corporation

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr. Sathyaraj

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. B. Somasekar

Ms J v R and Sons Rep by Its Prop Thiru Thulasiraman versus State Bank of India