Dismissed

Mr N Senthil Kumar v. M s Repco Home Finance Ltd.

DRT29 Mar 2023SA/465/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI Application challenging a Section 14 order issued by the Civil Judge. The applicant, suffering from an accident, failed to exhibit cause for the interim balloon order despite being hospitalized, leaving the bank's recovery measures intact.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application dismissed without costs; applicant granted liberty to approach the bank for an amicable settlement by 30.04.2023.

Mr N Senthil Kumar versus M s Repco Home Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.465 of 2022 29.03.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 29^th day of March, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 465 of 2022

¶8

Mr. N. Senthil Kumar, S/o.Nagendran, D.No.5/79, Srinivas Perumal Koil Street, Sathanandapuram,

¶9

Chennai – 600 128. ….Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M/s.REPCO Home Finance Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Mr.V.Gomathi Sankar, The Chief Manager, ARB, Anna Nagar,

¶12

Having Office at:

¶13

Plot No.4055, U Block, No.10, 1^st Floor, UPP. Punjab National Bank, 4^th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040.

¶14

Mrs.S.Sharmila, W/o.N.Senthil Kumar, D.No.5/79, Srinivas Perumal Koil Street, Sathanandapuram,

¶15

Chennai – 600 128 ….Respondents

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.S.Mangala Kumar. Counsel for Respondent : M/s. A. Ilangovan.

¶18

¶19

S.A.465 of 2022 29.03.2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This SA is filed challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CJM, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P. No. 5701 of 2022 dated 26.07.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,99,417/-.

¶22

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶23

It is the case of applicant that he met with an accident at Bangalore and is hospitalized and therefore sought for six weeks further time to report on the payment of second part of conditional order. This is a challenge to the CJM order dated 26.07.2022. Despite approaching this Tribunal, it is now evident that applicant is continuing his default thus fortifying the contentions of respondent bank.

¶24

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submits that applicant is capable and competent to remit the payments, but is willfully not doing so and prayed for an appropriate order in the present SA.

¶25

Ld. counsel for applicant submits that applicant could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while obtaining orders from the Ld.CJM.

¶26

In the circumstances as applicant could not comply with the interim conditions and are continuing their default with the respondent and also as they could not establish any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while obtaining the Section 14 order, there are no tenable merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

¶28

S.A.465 of 2022 29.03.2023

¶29

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without cost. Applicant will be at liberty to approach respondent bank for an amicable settlement by or before 30.04.2023, failing which respondent bank will be entitled to execute the Ld. CJM order

¶30

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

¶31

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 29^th day of March, 2023)

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mr N Senthil Kumar v. M s Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr N Senthil Kumar v. M s Repco Home Finance 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

Vinothkukmar Kolamani versus Fincare Small Finance Bank Ltd.

South Indian Bank versus Skr Trading

A Elumalai versus Vistaar Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited versus Dr Parthasarathy Memorial Hospital

R Dhanalakshmi versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Mr G Subramani versus Canara Bank