Dismissed

K Vinothkumar v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT11 Apr 2023SA/472/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application challenging the bank's measures under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The court found that the bank had followed requisite statutory procedures and the appeal lacked merits.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI Application No. 472 of 2022 dismissed without costs. Interim stay vacated.

K Vinothkumar versus City Union Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.472 of 2022 11.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 472 of 2022

¶8

K.Vinothkumar, S/o.Kolamani, No.79, Rettaimalai Srinivasan Nagar, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019. ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

City Union Bank Limited, Egmore Branch, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, No.51/33, Police Commissioner Office Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 088. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.E.Udaya Chander Counsel for Respondent : M/s.Akshai Mani.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the measures initiated by respondent

¶15

bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CJM, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P. No. 6378 of 2022 dated 18.07.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,56,696/-

¶16

Heard Ld. counsel appearing for respondent bank and perused records. No representation on behalf of applicant.

¶17

¶18

S.A.472 of 2022 11.04.2023

¶19

It is the case of applicant that he, along with his mother, availed various credit facilities from respondent bank during 2019 and 2020 and offered immovable property as security for due repayment of loan thus availed and was regular in repayment of installments till 28.04.2021. Thereafter he had remitted a sum of Rs.60,700/- on 29.09.2021 and Rs.14,761/- on 30.09.2021. Due to pandemic Covid-19, applicant could not generate enough revenues to remit the EMIs and thus committed default after September, 2021. It is the case of applicant that no notice under Section 13(2) or 13(4) has been served to him by respondent bank and that only when Advocate Commissioner visited the property, applicant came to know about the impugned order passed by Ld. CJM. It is the case of applicant that respondent bank did not follow the procedures contemplated under the Act while invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the property.

¶20

Whereas Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that despite repeated requests, as applicant committed default in repayment of loan, respondent bank had classified the loan account as NPA on 30.11.2021and issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 22.02.2022, which notice was duly served to applicant on 26.02.2022 as evidenced from acknowledgment card filed along with typed set of documents. Despite receipt of notice, as applicant did not come forward to clear the dues even after expiry of statutory period, respondent issued Possession Notice dated 28.04.2022, which was duly served, affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured asset and published in two leading newspapers on 30.04.2022 as warranted under law. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that the secured creditor had obtained

¶21

¶22

S.A.472 of 2022 11.04.2023

¶23

orders under Section 14 of the Act from Ld. CJM, Chengalpattu in Crl.M.P. No. 6378 of 2022 dated 18.07.2022 for taking physical possession of the secured asset

¶24

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that applicant had preferred this SA challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under Section 14 of the Act and obtained interim order from this Tribunal and had complied only with first part of conditional order. Despite seeking time to comply with second part of order, applicant did not report compliance and there was no representation on behalf of applicant during last hearing and even today.

¶25

From the foregone submissions, it is found that respondent bank had followed the procedures as warranted under law while initiating action under the Act and that there are no merits in the present application and hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim stay, if

¶27

any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶28

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶29

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

¶30

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 11^th day of April, 2023)

¶31

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

K Vinothkumar v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Vinothkumar v. City Union 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

M Akilandeswari versus the South Indian Bank Ltd.

M Akilandeswari W O B Muthukumar versus South Indian Bank

Tikku versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Kathiravan versus M s Icici Home Finance Ltd.

T Udayakumar versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Prasammamasakthi Sawmill versus Indian Bank