Dismissed

K Rajendran v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

DRT5 Apr 2023SA/541/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application challenging an e-auction sale notice, finding no infirmities in the respondent's procedure under the Act. The applicant is directed to clear dues to vacate any interim stay.

What did the court decide?

The SARFAESI application is dismissed; all interim stays are vacated; IAs are closed.

K Rajendran versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.541 of 2022 05.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 05^th day of April, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 541 of 2022

¶7

Sh. K.Rajendran Old No.C-59, New No.11, 9^th Cross West Street, Extension Thillai Nagar, Thiruchirapalli – 620 018.

¶8

….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer, M/s.Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Company Limited Registered Head Office, NSC Bose Road, Parrys, Chennai – 600 001. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.P.Anbarasan. Counsel for Respondent : M/s K.J. Parthasarathy

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 17.11.2022 issued

¶15

by respondent institution scheduling sale to 23.12.2022, for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,42,575,40p.

¶16

Respondent institution entered appearance and filed counter and typed set of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act.

¶17

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent institution and perused records.

¶18

¶19

S.A.541 of 2022 05.04.2023

¶20

It is the case of applicant that he is a renowned doctor from Trichy, who availed Housing Loan to the tune of Rs.29,90,000/- and executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of respondent institution. Though applicant was regular in repayment of installments, owing to Pandemic Covid-19, applicant had dedicated his service to the noble cause and hence could not generate enough income to repay the dues. It is the case of applicant that the subject property is purchased in Chennai and is being used by applicant and his family members during their visit to Chennai and was lying vacant only. It is the case of applicant that demand notice claimed to have been issued by respondent is not served to applicant, respondent failed to publish and affix the possession notice and sale notice as contemplated under law, respondent failed to give 30 clear days notice before bringing the property to sale, the reserve price fixed by respondent is much low when compared to the market value of the property.

¶21

Whereas Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that subsequent to availing of loan, as applicant committed default in repayment, respondent had classified the loan account as NPA on 24.03.2021 and issued Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act dated 07.06.2021, which notice returned unserved. Hence respondent had caused paper publication of notice in ‘Dinamani’ and ‘New Indian Express’ on 16.07.2021 and also affixed the same in the last known address of the borrower. As applicant did not come forward to clear the dues even after expiry of statutory period, respondent issued Possession Notice dated 27.10.2021, which was duly served, affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured asset and published in two leading newspapers on 30.10.2021 as warranted under law. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that the secured creditor had obtained orders under Section 14 of the Act in Crl. M.P. NO.6640

¶22

¶23

S.A.541 of 2022 05.04.2023

¶24

of 2022 and actual possession was taken and delivered to the secured creditor by the Advocate Commissioner on 17.12.2022.

¶25

Ld. counsel submitted that respondent had proceeded further with their SARFAESI measures and issued Sale Notice dated 16.11.2022 scheduling sale to 23.12.2022, which was duly served, affixed and published in ‘Dinamani’ and ‘New Indian Express’ on 17.11.2022. It is submitted that sale notice has been issued after obtaining valuation from approved valuer on 18.10.2022. Ld. counsel for respondent submitted that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent while initiating measures under Act and that the sale scheduled on 23.12.2022 did not fructify for want of bidders and hence the above SA has become infructuous. Thus submitting, Ld. counsel prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶26

Memo vide SR No.14352/ 22 dated 22.12.2022 was filed on behalf of applicant submitting therein that he is ready and willing to regularise his loan account and to prove his bonafides are ready to remit a sum of Rs.2,64,257/- before sale and another sum of Rs.2,70,000/- within a period of four weeks thereafter and prayed for interim stay from this Tribunal. Considering the memo, interim order was passed directing the applicant to cause payments in terms of the memo. However, applicant did not report compliance of any of the conditional order.

¶27

From the foregone submissions, as there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent while initiating action under the Act, there are no merits in the present application and hence SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

¶29

S.A.541 of 2022 05.04.2023

¶30

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim stay, if

¶31

any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending

¶32

stand closed.

¶33

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶34

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

¶35

guidelines.

¶36

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 05^th day of April, 2023)

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

K Rajendran v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Rajendran v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

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

Sri Laxmi Timbers Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

M s Casuarina Bay versus Canara Bank

M s Casuarina Bay versus Canara Bank

Mrs S Eswari versus M s Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr a v Sudersan

Ms Sun Sine Solution Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director v Venkatesh versus South Indian Bank