Allowed

Mr S Purushothaman v. The a O Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd.

DRT6 Feb 2023SA/454/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application challenging a possession notice. The court held the action suffered from infirmity because the respondent failed to comply with Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act regarding objections received via postal track, despite denying receipt.

What did the court decide?

SA allowed, interim orders vacated, pending IAs closed, liberty to proceed with recovery if default continued.

Mr S Purushothaman versus The a O Cholamandalam Investment And Finance… — Arbitration | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 454 of 2022 06.02.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 06^th day of February, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 454 of 2022

¶7

Mr.S.Purushothaman, S/o. Mr.Sampath, No.154C Ramanujam Nagar Nettari Sirukaveripakkam, Kancheepuram – 631 502. …Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Dare House, 2 N.S.C.Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.T.Pon Suyambu Vinayagam. Counsel for Respondent : Mr.Gautham Venkatesh.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 10.10.2022 issued by

¶14

respondent financial institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,54,80,282/-.

¶15

Respondent institution had entered appearance and filed counter and typed set

¶16

of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act.

¶17

¶18

S.A. 454 of 2022 06.02.2023

¶19

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is the case of applicant that respondent financial institution has not complied with the provisions of Section 13(3A) as well as not registered the Securities with CERSAI. Ld. counsel for applicant submits that there is no business for the borrower as of now and therefore he is unable to make any payments to the respondent financial institution after initiation of SARFAESI actions.

¶20

Whereas respondent financial institution is represented by its Ld. counsel who submitted that the Authorised Officer has gone on an affidavit submitting therein that they had not received the alleged objection letter dated 12.08.2022 purported to have been delivered to respondent’s address on 13.08.2022 as per postal track report, owing to which they could not make any reply for the same. As borrower did not come forward by causing any payments and continued his default, the impugned possession notice dated 10.10.2022, came to be issued in accordance to law. Ld. counsel appearing for respondent financial institution submits that the security has been duly registered with CERSAI in terms of their documents furnished along with counter and since no objections were received by them from the borrower as contemplated under Section 13(3), no reply as warranted under Section 13(3A) was issued. Ld. counsel further submits that respondent financial institution, even otherwise has furnished all the documents required in support of their actions including the statement of account as demanded by the borrower in their alleged objections. Ld. counsel submits that no reply was made only because there was no receipt of the objection letter and not otherwise. It is the case of respondent that along with their counter and typed set of documents all the alleged information as sought for under Section 13(3A) were duly served upon the

¶21

¶22

S.A. 454 of 2022 06.02.2023

¶23

applicant. It is also submitted that since borrower did not cause any payments even after initiation of SARFAESI action, appropriate orders may be passed in the SA.

¶24

In the circumstances as compliance of rules could not be established even after purported receipt of notice, which the respondent financial institution’s Authorised Officer has put on affidavit, denying its receipt, the postal track record furnished by the applicant confirms delivery of the letter on 13.08.2022 at the address of the respondent financial institution. Since compliance of Section 13(3A) is not in accordance to law, the impugned actions of the Authorised Officer suffer from the said infirmity and hence the present SA is liable to be allowed.

¶25

Accordingly, SA stands allowed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed. Liberty be with respondent financial institution to proceed further in accordance to law if the default of the borrower continued.

¶26

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

Mr S Purushothaman v. The a O Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr S Purushothaman v. The a O Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company 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

C Subramanian versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

R Suriyakishore versus Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Mr Rameez Raja versus M s Encore Assest Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

M s Bright Enterprises versus Indian Bank

C Janarthanan versus Union Bank of India

Paul Radje versus Rbl Bank Limited