Allowed

Mariyamma John v. Thiruvalla Urban Cooperative Bank

DRT14 Mar 2023SA/534/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a securitization application filed to set aside a bank's demand notice and sale notice. Upon the bank's withdrawal of the notices, the Tribunal directed immediate restoration of secured assets to the borrowers and credited illegal expenses.

What did the court decide?

SA allowed; defendant directed to restore possession immediately; directive to credit expenses charged for defective securitization measures.

Mariyamma John versus Thiruvalla Urban Cooperative Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2023

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.534/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

Mariyamma John Aged 44 years, W/o Ravi Praksh, Kunnambil House, Kavumbagham P.O, Thiruvalla.

¶7

Ravi Prakash. Aged 44 years, S/o Raveendran Nair, Kunnambil House, Kavumbaghamn P.O, Thiruvalla. …Applicants

¶8

And

¶9

The Authorised Officer, Thiruvalla Urban Co Operative Bank Ltd, No.477, Reg Office Thiruvalla-689101 …Defendant

¶10

This Securitization Application having been heard on 08.03.2023in the presence of AdvocateShiv Shankarfor the applicants and Advocate Jojo Joseph represented for the defendant, and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following:

¶11

F I N A L O R D E R

¶12

This Securitization Application is filed by the applicantsunder S.17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘ the SARFAESI Act ’) challenging the Annexure Sale notice dated 19.09.2022 issued by the defendant bank for sale of the secured asset.

¶13

¶14

SA 534/2022

¶15

The applicants haven sought relief in the SA praying to set aside Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 20.08.2020 issued to the applicants under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and Annexure-A7sale notice dated 19.09.2022.

¶16

Pending the SA, the defendant bank filed a memo before the Tribunal on 08.03.2023 stating that they are not intending to proceed further with the impugned demand notice and further notices produced in the above SA and hence it is prayed to dispose of the SA on the basis of the memo filed by them, reserving their right to initiate fresh proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

¶17

On careful consideration of the submissions and the materials available on record, it appears that this SA was filed by the applicants challenging Annexures-A1 and A7 notices i.e., demand notice dated 20.08.2020and sale notice dated 19.09.2022 issued by the defendant bank. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant bank submitted that the defendants are not intending to proceed further with the impugned demand notice and further notices produced in the above SA are withdrawn. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants have no objection in disposing of the SA by passing appropriate orders by the Tribunal with cost and necessary order may be passed for proper reimbursement of the expenses charged in the loan account of the applicant towards such defective and illegal securitization measures.

¶18

In the above circumstance, there is absolutely no necessity in adjudicating the claim of the applicants in relation to Annexure-A1 demand notice dated 20.08.2020 and Annexure-A7sale notice dated

¶19

¶20

SA 534/2022

¶21

19.09.2022issued by the defendant bank which are liable to be set aside.

¶22

Hence it is ordered:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In view of the foregoing reason, the SA is allowed directing the defendant to restore possession of the secured assets to the borrowers immediately without any further delay giving liberty to the defendant to proceed afresh with their SARFAESI measures in accordance with the law and shall give proper credits of such expenses in the loan account of the applicants charged for the impugned securitization measures forthwith. No order as to costs.

¶25

(Dictated to my Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 14^th day of March, 2023)

¶26

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶27

¶28

SA 534/2022

¶29

D	ocuments o	n the part of the applicants
Annexures	Date	Particulars of documents
Annexure-A1	20.08.2020	Photocopy of the demand notice issued by the defendant
Annexure-A2	--	True copy of the account statement of the loan account No.2114
Annexure-A3	--	True copy of the account statement of loan account No.1571
Annexure-A4	--	True English translated copies of Annexure- A2
Annexure-A5	--	True English translated copies of Annexure- A2
Annexure-A6	22.03.2022	Photocopy of notice dated 22.03.2022 issued by Advocate Commissioner
Annexure-A7	19.09.2022	Photocopy of the sale notice dated 19.09.202

¶30

Documents on the part of the defendant

¶31

Nil

¶32

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶33

¶34

SA 534/2022

¶35

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶36

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2023

¶38

SA No.534/2022

¶39

Between

¶40

Mariyamma John Aged 44 years, W/o Ravi Praksh, Kunnambil House, Kavumbagham P.O, Thiruvalla.

¶41

Ravi Prakash. Aged 44 years, S/o Raveendran Nair, Kunnambil House, Kavumbaghamn P.O, Thiruvalla. …Applicants

¶42

And

¶43

The Authorised Officer, ThiruvallaUrbanCo Operative Bank Ltd, No.477, Reg Office Thiruvalla-689101 … Defendant

¶44

F I N A L O R D E R

Mariyamma John v. Thiruvalla Urban Cooperative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyamma John v. Thiruvalla Urban Cooperative Bank

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ranjeet Pandey

M/S.Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S.Shakunthala Industries

Bank of India versus M/S.Supreme Pharma

Icici Bank Limited versus Syed Ashfaq Ahmed

State Bank of India versus M/S Life Care Children Hospital

State Bank of India versus Ms Auto Plaanate Indostry Pvt. Ltd.