Dismissed

Manoharan v. State Bank of India

DRT6 Mar 2023SA/537/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This debt recovery tribunal disposed of a SARFAESI application challenging an auction sale of a secured property by a bank for recovery of a housing loan dispute, dismissing the plea as the applicant failed to establish procedural infirmities or redeem the asset as claimed.

What did the court decide?

Sale confirmed; application dismissed without costs; interim stay, if any, vacated.

Manoharan versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

SA No.537/2022

06.03.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 06^th day of March, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 537 of 2022

¶9

Mr.P.Manoharan, S/o.Mr.S.Ponnaiyan, Flat No.B-5, Block No.01, Floor No.05, Kochar Panchseel, Door No.129, Thiruvallur High Road, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098 …Applicant Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Asset Recovery Management Branch, No.44, 1^st Floor, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Janarthan. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.N.Kishorekumar.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the sale held on 29.11.2022pursuant to Sale Notice dated 02.11.2022 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.91,64,000/-.

¶15

It is the case of applicant that he availed Housing Loan facility to the tune of Rs.47,40,000/- from respondent bank on 07.09.2013 and offered the schedule mentioned property as security for due repayment of loan thus availed. Loan is repayable in 300 EMIs of Rs.44,039/- each. It is the case of applicant that he had remitted a sum of Rs.19,10,000/- thus far to the credit of loan account. Though

SA No.537/2022

06.03.2023

applicant was regular in repayment of instalments, due to Pandemic Covid-19, applicant suffered business loss, thus resulting in default in repayment of instalments and initiation of measures under SARFAESI Act by respondent bank for recovery of its dues. It is submitted that subsequent to issuance of sale notice dated 02.11.2022, applicant had approached respondent bank and offered to settle the loan dues for a sum of Rs.40 lakhs, which was replied by respondent bank stating therein that the outstanding due as on 17.10.2022 is Rs.91 lakhs and hence rejected the offer of applicant. Subsequently, on 21.11.2022 applicant had sent legal notice to respondent bank and requested to consider the OTS proposal, however respondent bank did not either accept or reject the same but proceeded further with sale of secured asset.

¶20

Applicant had contended that the reserve price fixed by respondent bank at Rs.48.10 lakhs is very low when they themselves have arrived the value at Rs.53.40 lakhs, respondent bank failed to give 15 days clear notice to applicant before bringing the property to sale, respondent bank failed to publish and affix the sale notice as contemplated under the Act.

¶21

Whereas respondent bank who was on caveat, had filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing the actions taken by them under the Act. Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that the present SA has been filed by applicant suppressing the facts with false and vexatious allegations. It is submitted that E-auction sale was held on 29.11.2022 pursuant to sale notice dated 02.11.2022 and Mr.Chetan Kumar Jain and Smt. Swathi were the successful bidders for sale consideration of sum of Rs.48,60,000/-. Auction purchasers had deposited 25% of

SA No.537/2022

06.03.2023

the bid amount and respondent bank had confirmed the sale in favour of auction purchasers.

¶26

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that as applicant committed default in repayment of instalments, loan account was classified as NPA on 10.06.2019 in accordance to RBI guidelines and demand notice under Section 13(2) dated 03.02.2021 was issued, as the said notice returned unserved as ‘addressee left without instructions’ respondent bank had caused publication of demand notice in ‘The New Indian Express’ and ‘Dinamani’ dated 13.02.2021. As applicant did not come forward to repay the dues within statutory period, respondent bank issued Possession Notice dated 27.04.2021, which also returned unserved on 30.04.2021 with same endorsement as that of demand notice. Possession notice was affixed and published in ‘The New Indian Express’ and ‘Dinamani’ dated 29.04.2021.

¶27

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that respondent bank proceeded further with their recovery measures and sale Notice dated 02.11.2022 was sent to applicant, which was served in one address on 05.11.2022 and another address on 10.11.2022 as evidenced from acknowledgment cards filed along with typed set of documents, affixed on the secured asset and published in two newspapers ‘Times of India’ and ‘Dinakaran” on 04.11.2022. Respondent bank had obtained valuation report of the subject property on 22.09.2022 before bringing the property to sale and fixed the reserve price accordingly. It is further submitted that respondent bank had already filed an OA No.11 of 2020 before DRT-II, Chennai which was decreed vide final order dated 31.05.2022. The OTS offer submitted by applicant was very low when compared to the outstanding amount and value of the secured asset and hence the same was rejected as not acceptable by respondent bank.

SA No.537/2022

06.03.2023

Ld. counsel for respondent bank submitted that applicant while moving this SA had filed a memo stating that the subject property is a dwelling house and that he is willing to redeem the same by remitting the entire sale consideration and undertook to remit Rs.20 lakhs within two days and balance within 45 days. However, despite availing time, applicant did not come forward to make any payment and that the present SA is filed only to stall the recovery process of respondent bank. Thus, submitting Ld. counsel prayed for passing necessary orders. However, except for pleading in the grounds of SA, no such memo is filed into this Tribunal, nor has the applicant acted in terms of the said pleadings. Hence nothing could be considered by this Tribunal.

¶32

From the foregone submissions, as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while bringing the secured asset to sale, this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

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

¶34

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 06^th day of March, 2023)

¶37

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

Manoharan v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoharan v. State Bank of India

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

Mrs R Santhanalakshmi versus Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus New Murugan Stores

Lingam Timber Plywoods versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Khamesh versus Bank of India

Amutha versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Venkatesan S versus Union Bank of India