The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application to set aside a possession notice issued by a bank. The Tribunal found strict compliance with statutory rules and held the applicant failed to prove the account classification was incorrect or service of notices was defective.
The setting aside of the possession notice is dismissed, and the application is closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 28th day of March, 2023
PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No.489/2022
Mr.R.Ganesh, S/o.Rajendra Babu, Door No.41, Mohanan Street, Arani palayam, Arani Town & Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District 632 301.
… Applicant.
Vs.
The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, MAPC, 19, Ayyankulam Street, Thiruvannamalai.
Also at Indian Bank, Arni Branch, P.B.No.15, 30, Vadiraja Street, Kosapalayam, Arni – 632 301. … Respondent. Counsel for Applicant : M/s.B.Rajesh. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.Saravana Prakash.S. …..
O R D E R
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (herein after called SARFAESI Act or the ‘Act’, as the case be), to set aside the possession notice dt.18.05.2022 issued by the Respondent.
2
3
and the same has not been published as required under the statute. The applicant has also taken the contention regarding classification of account as NPA and another contention regarding proper service of demand notice. Along with SA, the applicant had produced the following documents:
(i) Demand Notice dt.08.03.2022.
(ii) Statement of accounts.
(iii)Possession Notice dt.18.05.2022 received on 02.07.2022.
4
of the applicant that the possession notice was received by them only on 02.07.2022. Hence on the above contentions, the respondent seeks dismissal of the SA. Along with counter, the respondent had filed the following documents:
as taken in the SA and counter affidavit and also taken note of the documents produced by both sides in support of their contentions. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:
Since these issues are correlated and inter related, the same are gone into and decided together.
5
admitting the defaults occurred in the account, the applicant is taking the contention as to the classification of account as NPA. The respondent in their counter contended that the account is classified as NPA due to the continuous defaults occurred in the account. In the light of specific contention of the respondent that the account is classified as NPA due to continuous defaults, the onus is on the applicant to prove that the same is not in accordance with the Master Circulars, especially when the applicant himself is admitting that he could not make prompt payment to the facilities. No particulars as to any remittances which eluded the quantification are put forth by the applicant, despite production of statement of account by the respondent bank. The applicant had not produced any proof as to any payment of the amount and in the absence of any such proof, this Tribunal is not inclined to accept the contention of the applicant that the classification of account as NPA is in accordance with the statute.
6
7
pending IAs stands closed. Issue copies in accordance with Rule 16 of
the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1983.
( Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 28th day of March, 2023 )
Sd./(T.RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the classification of the loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) was in accordance with the Master Circulars of RBI.
Whether the procedure followed by the Respondent Bank leading to the issuance of the possession notice complied with the statute.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. R. Ganesh
The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank
T. Rajesh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
T. Rajesh
Parties & counsel
