Dismissed

Krishna Babu v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT29 Mar 2023SA/517/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This summary field is intentionally kept null as per strict extraction rules regarding financial amounts and procedural history not being extraneous to the legal issue. The case concerned the dismissal of a Section 17 application challenging a SARFEASI Act commission warrant.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; all pending interim applications closed.

Krishna Babu versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 29^th day of March, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No.517 of 2022

¶6

Mr. A. Krishna Babu Son of Late Annamalai No.38/28, New Vaniyankulam 3^rd Street Thiruvannamalai – 606 601 …Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Authorised Officer Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Branch Rep. by its Branch Manager No.91/106, Big Street, Tiruvannamalai District

¶9

Mr. D. Elumalai S/o Dhananjayan Door No.42, Pey Gopuram Main Street Thiruvannamalai – 606 601 …Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s R. Kannan & K. Gayathri Counsel for 1^st Respondent : M/s K.N. Chinnakrishnan Counsel for 2^nd Respondent : ….

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

The commission warrant issued under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (herein after been referred as SARFEASI Act or the Act as the case be, is challenged in this application filed under Section 17 of the Act.

¶13

The applicant admits to have availed an Over Draft Facilities for Rs.25 Lakhs and Rs.5 Lakhs and also a term loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from the respondent. It is contended that the repayments were prompt and despite the same the account has wrongly been classified as NPA. It is also stated that the

¶14

¶15

demand notice was not issued to all the borrowers, which was followed by possession notice. It is also alleged that after suppressing as to the flaws in measures, the respondent had approached the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate and obtained an order which is impugned in the present proceedings. It is also alleged that the 1^st respondent had sold the property and challenging the said measures SA.36 of 2021 was also filed. In the grounds to the SA the applicant is reiterating the contentions as taken in the statement of facts.

¶16

The 1^st respondent filed their counter denying the averments as taken in the SA and refuting the allegation as to the flaws in procedure. The respondent had also produced the loan documents, proof of despatch of demand notice paper publication of demand notice, proof of service, affixture and paper publication of possession notice as well as the sale notices. The documents pertaining to the mortgage of the properties is also filed. The respondent had also produced the sale certificate issued by the respondent in favour of 2^nd respondent. Considering the fact that the lis in this SA is pertaining to Section 14 proceedings, the 2^nd respondent is not a necessary party and hence notice to 2^nd respondent is dispensed with.

¶17

Heard the counsel for both sides and considered the subject matter and the only issue to be decided is as to the legality of the measures leading to the impugned Section 14 proceedings.

¶18

In their efforts to prove the compliance of statutory provisions, the respondent had produced the proof of despatch of demand notice along with the returned covers. The respondent had also taken out paper publication which satisfies the compliance of Rule 3.

¶19

¶20

The compliance of Rule 8 (1) and 8(2) is established by production of the possession notice, proof of affixture and proof of publication. The proof of service of sale notice is also proved by the documents attending to it. Even otherwise the compliance as to the measures leading to possession notice and sale notice had nothing to do with the legality of Section 14 proceedings.

¶21

The respondent had along with their memo produced the order in SA.36 of 2021 of this Tribunal wherein this Tribunal had upholded the measures leading to conduct of the sale, which also takes in the compliance of the statutory measures leading to the same. In view of the finality attained in findings as rendered in SA.36 of 2021, the reconsideration of those issues does not arise.

¶22

Apart from the above discussed aspects no other contention had been taken by the applicant in the SA. In view of the findings entered herein before, this Tribunal is of the view that nothing survives in the SA and the SA is devoid of any merits.

¶23

In the result the SA stands dismissed and all pending IA’s stands closed, no orders as to cost. Issue copies in accordance with Rule 16 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993.

¶24

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

¶25

Sd/(T. RAJESH ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶26

Krishna Babu v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Babu v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Ganesh versus Indian Bank

N Krishnappa versus Karvy Financial Services Limited

D Senthil versus Indian Overseas Bank

R Ganesh versus Indian Bank

Balwantray Agarwal versus Deustche Bank

Mrs S Abinisha versus Indian Bank