Dismissed

M s Info Network Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Bank

DRT26 Sept 2023SA/478/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged a possession notice issued by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant argued that the bank failed to sell mortgaged properties despite consent to asset sale. The court found the bank's procedure in accordance with law and dismissed the application without costs.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs; interim order (if any) vacated; other pending IAs closed.

M s Info Network Management Company Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA No. 478 of 2022

26.09.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 26^th day of September, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 478 of 2022

¶8

M/s. Info Network Management company Pvt Ltd

¶9

Rep by its Director Mr. T.S.Narayanaswamy New No.18, Old.No.199 North Usman Road T.Nagar Chennai – 600 017 …. Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, T.Nagar Branch 7 Prakasam Road, T Nagar Chennai – 600 017 …. Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. T.Prabakaran Counsel for Respondent : M/s. RRK Associates

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the possession notice dated 29.09.2022 for recovery

¶16

of a sum of Rs.2,74,76,909/-.

¶17

Heard the Ld.Counsel appearing for respondent bank. No representation for

¶18

applicants even during second round of call work and also in the earlier adjournments.

SA No. 478 of 2022

26.09.2023

It is the case of applicant that they had availed various credit facilities to the tune of Rs.3,94,35,000/- from respondent bank and was regular in repayment of installments without any delay or default. However, owing to Pandemic Covid-19 and prolonged lockdowns imposed, applicant suffered loss in business resulting in classification of loan account as NPA and initiation of SARFAESI measures by respondent. It is the case of applicant that respondent had issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act dated 05.07.2022 informing that the loan account was classified as NPA on 13.06.2022 claiming an outstanding of Rs.2,65,71,789/-. Applicant had submitted their objections vide letter dated 29.08.2022 and requested consent of respondent bank to discharge the liabilities by sale of secured assets. Respondent bank has given consent to the same and sold two properties and adjusted the sale proceeds towards the borrowers loan account. However, respondent did not further respond to the request of applicant for sale of five other properties mortgaged with respondent bank. Thereafter, applicant was negotiating with respondent bank for regularization of loan account by remitting defaulted installments but respondent bank without considering the said request of applicant, had hurriedly issued the subject impugned possession notice.

¶23

Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submitted that applicant despite approaching this Tribunal continued their default and had not complied the interim order of this Tribunal even though they have undertaken to do so. It is submitted that applicant had availed loan facilities from respondent bank and created equitable mortgage over the schedule property as security for due discharge of the debt. Since applicant fell in arrears of their repayment, the account came to be declared as an NPA as on

SA No. 478 of 2022

26.09.2023

13.06.2022. Consequent upon which a demand notice came to be issued on 05.07.2022, which was duly acknowledged by borrowers / applicant. Applicant had preferred to raise objections to the said demand notice by their letter dated 29.08.2022, which was immediately replied on 30.08.2022. Subsequent to which as applicant did not cause any payment and continued their default, impugned possession notice came to be issued on 29.09.2022, which was duly served on the borrowers, affixed on the mortgage property and also published in “New Indian Express” in English and “Dinamani” in Tamil on 01.10.2022. Despite the above steps taken by the respondent bank, applicant had only approached this Tribunal through this SA, but did not make any attempts to discharge their debt and therefore the debt due from applicant is still pending and recoverable. Ld.Counsel for respondent bank submits that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank, while issuing the impugned possession notice and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶28

In the circumstances, as respondent bank had established its procedure while issuing the impugned possession notice and demonstrated the same through their typed set of documents, actions of the respondent bank are found to be in accordance to law and hence there are no tenable infirmities found in the procedure adopted by respondent bank, while issuing the impugned possession notice. Consequently, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Accordingly, SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

SA No. 478 of 2022

26.09.2023

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶34

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

¶35

guidelines.

¶36

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 26^th day of September, 2023)

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶39

PRESIDING OFFICER

M s Info Network Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M s Info Network Management Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Vijayakumar versus Indian Bank

Bank of India versus Mohan

Dharama Pharmacy Private Limited versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

P K Sirajudeen S O Kaleel Rahman versus Canara Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Sri Devi Motors

South Indian Bank versus Dhilip Kumar