Dismissed

Ms Aishwarya Heights Infra Private Limited v. Canara Bank

DRT24 Apr 2023SA/544/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against symbolic possession notice issued by Canara Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Appellants sought restructuring and extension of time due to project delays and pandemic. The Tribunal held the account remained NPA post-restructuring due to subsequent defaults and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; symbolic possession notice upheld.

Ms Aishwarya Heights Infra Private Limited versus… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this the 24th day of April 2023

¶3

Present: Sri IMTIAZ ALI

Presiding Officer

s.a.No,54412022

BETWEENI

M/s Aishwarya Heights Infra P. Ltd., Registered Office at

¶8

Ahuja Chambers,

¶9

Flat No.2O4, 2nd Floor,

¶10

No.1, Kumara Krupa Road, Bengaluru-560 001 Represented by Sri R Chandru, Managing Director

¶11

Sri R. Chandru, S/o Sri Ramappa, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.126, 6th Main, Between 12th & 13th cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 003

¶12

Smt. S.T. Nalinakshi, Wo^{Sri R. Chandru,} Aged about 53 years, Residing at No.126, 6th Main, Between 12th & 13th cross, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 003

APPELLANTS

ANDI

The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Assets Recovery l"lanagement Branch-I, 2nd Block, CO Building, No.86, Spencer Tower, [4.G. Road, Bengaluru-560 001

¶17

5.A,No.54412022

¶18

Canara Bank, Head Office, # 112, J.C. Road, Bengaluru- 560 002 Represented by its l,lanaging Director RESPONDENTS

¶19

counsels on record /aooeared for: Appella nts : Sri Kiran B.S. Respondent Bank: Sri Vignesh Shetty

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

The Appellants have flled the^present Appeal under Section t7(L) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (for short 'Act'), challenging the symbolic^possession notice dated 02.O7.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act and Rules B and 9 of the Security Interest^{(Enforcement)Rules,} 2002 (for short'Rules') in respect of the immovable^{property for} recovery of Rs.73,68,31,048/- along with interest^from 0t.06.2022 and costs and interest thereon.

¶22

The facts leading to the^present Appeal in a nutshell are that, the 1't Appellant is a Private Limited Company^and Appellants No.2 and 3 are its Directors. They availed Term Loan of Rs.95 crore on 28.07.2014 from the Respondent Bank^vide Sanction letter^produced at Annexure-A3. Even before the sanctioning of the loan, on 28.07.2014 Appellant No.1 had filed an application before the BBMP, seeking approval of the^re- modified plan. As it was not issued by the BBMP even after more than two years, the Appellant No.1^got direction from the Hon'ble High Court on 24.O3.2016 to the BBMP to consider and

¶23

¶24

5.A.No.544/2022

¶25

issue the revised approved plan which was special condition in the loan sanction letter. The Respondent Bank had released the first disbursement of the loan during December 2015 and on receipt of the re-modified plan by the BBMP on 24.11.2016, the Respondent Bank disbursed second disbursement in Decembe:' 2016. The Appellants on compliance of the precedent and subsequent conditions commenced construction activity on the project in due earnest. Thereafter a total of about Rs.54.20 crore was disbursed periodically till June 2018 by the Respondent Bank after due verification and satisfaction on the progress in the project implementation. The bank also monitored the implementation through periodic inspections and Lender,s Independent Engineer (LIE) Reports. It is contended that the Appellants also repaid a total amount of about Rs.9.6B crore; they also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated t1.12.2OL7 with M/s PVR Limited vide Annexure-As for setting up 5 cinema screens, pursuant to which, they advanced a sum of Rs.1.00 crore and the receipt of the said amount is reflected in the bank statement produced at Annexure-A6; consequent to the inordinate delay on the part of the BBMp in approval of the Revised Approved Plan, Date of Commencement of Commercial Operations (DCCO) in the said mall project was postponed and the Appellants filed a letter dated 30.05.2018 with the Respondent No.2 Bank seeking to extend moratorium by ten months vide Annexure-A7; as per the Bank, the Date of

¶26

5.A.No.544/2022

¶27

Commencement of Commercial Operations was to come to an end on 30.06.2018 and immediately thereafter, the repayment of the loan would commence; the LIE report dated 29.06.2018 vide Annexure-A8 also concluded that the delay in progress of work as compared to schedule is on account of the delay in approval of re-modified plan by BBMP; the^{predecessor-in-} interest of Respondent No.2 Bank viz. Syndicate Bank vide its letter dated 01.08.2018^produced at Annexure-A9^granted extension of only 3 months instead of 10 months as was sought by Appellant No.1; even though the^project was being implemented by the Appellants expeditiously, due to certain factors beyond the control of the Appellants, there was delayⁱⁿ achieving the DCCO; however, the Appellants had^paid a total sum of Rs.25,13,34,558/- i.e. Rs.15,53,34,558/- towards^the interest payable on the amount disbursed and an amount^of Rs.9,60,00,000/- towards loan installments of the^principal amount which are reflected in the chart^produced at^Annexure- A10; by October 2019, as against the total sanctioned^loan amount of Rs.95 crore, the bank had disbursed only an amount aggregating to Rs.54.20 crore to the Appellant No.1;^the Respondent Bank refused to release the amounts as sought^by the Appellant No.1 vide letters dated 25.O7.2Ot9^and 11.09.2019^produced at Annexures-A11 and 412^{respectively;} Appellant No.1 submitted several requests and representations to the Respondent Bank for release of^monies and^{also to}

¶28

¶29

S.A.No.544/2022

¶30

restructure the loan, in spite of the fact that the Appellants were repaying the loan, the Respondent Bank on 30.10.2019 declared the loan account of Appellants as non-performing asset (NPA) and stopped all disbursements. Thereafter, having considered the representations of the Appellant No.1, the erstwhile Syndicate Bank (now the Respondent No.2) restructured the earlier Term Loan vide its Sanction dated 09.01.2020 produced at Annexure-A14 for release of Rs.32 crore as full and final settlement of the balance undrawn portion of Rs.40.80 crore to meet the balance project expenses which was subject to certain conditions and the project was required to be completed by Jund 2020; during March 2O2O, the Government of India amalgamated Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank, consequent to which the applicable interest rates on the loan account with effect from OL.O4.2O2O were revised on various dates vic.le Annexure-A15; thereafter, with effect from 25.03.2020, a national lockdown was announced which continued till 31.05.2020 which resulted in lack of manpower and delays in getting materials and other goods sourced from different pats of the country and overseas; hence project could not be completed in its entirety by the Appellants; subsequently, Appellants faced severe operational stress and project executional challenges even during the COVID-19 unlock period, which continued till March 31, 2022; in terms of the restructuring plan, the

¶31

¶32

S.A.No.544/2022

¶33

moratorium was upto June 2O2O and repayment would commence from July 2020 till June 2025.

¶34

Appellants further contended that in terms of clause 34 of the restructure plan, the sanctioned credit limit of Rs.32 crore was to be availed by the first Applicant within a maximum period of three months from the date of sanction^(i.e. from 09.01.2020) and in case of failure, the facilities would lapse. It is also stipulated that in respect of^genuine delay, the bank has the power to revalidate the sanction.

¶35

¶36

In view of the^pandemic crisis and the declaration of lockdown therefrom, which were beyond the control of^the Appellants, the Appellant No.1 addressed^{various letters} to^the 2nd Respondent Bank, seeking suitable^{reliefs with regardto} release of the entire amount of^{Rs.32 crore, in terms of the} restructured sanction,^postponement of^{the loan repayment} schedule and extension of time for^{completion of the project.} Even though Rs.32 crore was the^{amount to be disbursed by the} Respondent Bank under the restructuring^{plan, only an amount} of Rs.B.34 crore was actually released^{by the RespondentBank.} Taking all this into consideration,^{the Appellant No.1 also sought} for restructuring of the loan^{and proposal was given in detail} with regard to revenue that^{would be generated from the mall} and the schedule of repayment^{that would be undertaken by the} Appellants. The said representations^{are produced by the}

¶37

5.A.No.54412022

¶38

Appellants at Annexures-A16 and A17 dated 16.05.2020 and 18.06.2020 respectively,

¶39

It is further contended that the Appellant No.1 was entitled to such reliefs under the RBI guidelines announced vide Master Circulars for the purpose of countering COVID-19 stress produced at Annexure-A18. Consequent to the COVID-19 pandemic, a force majeure event, neither could the Appellants complete the project in its entirety nor commence commercial operations. Thus, the contractual non-performance by the Appellant No.1 was entirely due to facts which were beyond its control. The Respondent Bank refused to provide any financial or other relief to the Appellants and utterly failed in adhering to Term No.34 of the "Letter of Sanction,, dated 09.01.2020, which provided that "In respect of any genuine delay, revalidation of the sanction from the competent authority to be obtained,,. Appellants contended that despite the genuine, force majeure delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Respondent No.2 bank refused to revalidate the sanction, which sabotaged the project finance.

¶40

Appellants further contended that Respondent No.2 issued demand notice dated 12.08.2021 under Section 13(2) of the Act, demanding outstanding amount of Rs.6G,80,53,737.7L as on 12.08.2021 vide Annexure-Alg. Even though the loan account was declared as NpA on 30.10.2019, subsequent thereto

¶41

5.A.No.544/2022

¶42

on 09.01,2020, the loan was restructured and a fresh letter of sanction had been issued by the Bank. In case of default, in terms of the said restructured sanctioned loan (inadvertently mentioned as plan by the Appellants), the Respondent Bank was required to declare the account of the Appellant No.1 as NPA afresh. Without doing so, it was not open for the Respondent Bank to treat the earlier declaration done on 30.10.2019 as still subsisting, so as to initiate action under Section 13 of the Act. In response to the demand notice dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Respondent Bank under Section 13(2) of the Act, Appellant No.1 submitted the'Restructuring Proposal' dated 18.08.2021 vide Annexure-A2O, denying the contentions raised by the Bank in the said notice and further indicated various details and sought for restructuring of the loan account. The said representation of Appellant No.1 elicited no response within 15 days from the Respondent Bank, which is contrary to the^{provisionsof Section} 13(3A) of the Act. It is contended that the Appellant^No.1 submitted another'Restructuring Proposal' dated 15.11.2021 vide Annexure-A2l which came to be rejected vide AnnexureA22 which is contrary to the RBI's "Master Circular" dated O1.O4.2022. Thereafter within 3 days of rejecting^the 'Restructuring Proposal' of the Applicant, the Respondent Bank issued the impugned symbolic^possession notice vide AnnexureA24, which is now under challenge, notifying total charge on^the property as Rs.72,96,50,439.06 as on 31.03.2022. Immediately,

s.A.No.544/2022

thereafter, the Appellant No.1 submitted an One-Time Settlement (OTS) proposal dated 27.06.2022 vide Annexure-A25 agreeing to pay a total sum of Rs.60 crore which was consonant with the "Loan Recovery Policy 2022-23" and the said OTS proposal was rejected by the Respondent Bank.

¶47

The Appellants have, inter alia, urged various grounds stating that the notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act dated 12.08.2021 and 02.07.2022 respectively are wholly illegal, being contrary to law; if the proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank under the Act is permitted, it would cause wrongful losses to the Appellants in violation of Article 300-4 of the Constitution of India; upon the issuance of Letter of Sanction dated 09.01.2020, 'restructuring the credit facilities' of Appellant No.1, the loan accounts automatically became regularized; hence the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act stating that the Respondent Bank classified the debt as nonperforming asset as on 30.10.2019 in accordance with the directives/g uidelines relating to asset classification issued by the Reserve Bank of India is untenable and bad in law; even though the Appellant No.1 had submitted his reply/representation to the notice issued under Section 13(2), the same has not been considered by the bank and no communication is made by the bank as is required under Section 13(34) of the Act, in view of which, the impugned symbolic possession notice issued undei

S.A.No.544/2022

Section 13(4) of the Act is wholly illegal; the Respondents wholly erred in not noticing that the value of the schedule property which has now been brought to sale is valued more than Rs.573 crore and the same has been brought to auction by fixing a reserve price at Rs.370 crore, which is nearly Rs.200 crore less than the existing market value, which action of the Respondent Bank bringing the property to sale at such a low value is contrary to law; Respondent Bank failed to furnish the copy of the valuation report obtained by the bank and has not consulted the Appellants before fixing the reserve^price which is wholly illegal and contrary to the Rules; even though Term Loan of Rs.95.00 crore was sanctioned, only an amount aggregating to Rs.54.20 crore was disbursed and the balance of the amount was never released by the Respondent Bank in favour of the Appellants, as a result of which, the Appellants could^not complete the^project and failed to achieve the^DCCO;even though in terms of the revised sanctioned letter^dated 09.01.2020, the Respondent Bank was required to^{release an} amount of Rs.32.00 crore, so as to enable the^Appellantsto complete the^project, only an amount aggregating to^Rs.B.90 crore was in fact released which resulted in the^{AppellantNo.1} being unable to complete the^{project;RespondentBankhas} charged exorbitant rate of interest^{on the amountpayableby the} Appellants and has inflated the figure that^{is allegedlypayable} by the Appellants; had the bank agreed to^{release even a portion}

¶52

¶53

5.A.No.544,/2022

¶54

of the amount that was yet to be disbursed from out of the sanctioned loan, the Appellants would have been able to achieve the date of commencement of the operation of the mall, which would have generated the income and thereby making the entire project viable; it is only due to the rigid and untenable stand of the bank, the Appellant No.1 was unable to complete the project; the Respondents wholly erred in not noticing that even though clause 34 of the restructured sanctioned lodn (inadvertently mentioned as plan by the Appellants) specifically stipulated that in case of any genuine delay, the bank has the authority to revalidate the sanction. Even though due to the pandemic, the Appellants could not complete the project and they had brought the same to the notice of the bank, which was a good ground for the bank to revalidate the loan, but the bank refused to take any action in the matter and in turn proceeded to take coercive action against the Appellants under the provisions of the Act; Respondents have acted in a manner which: (a) violates statutory provisions; (b) contravenes procedural stipulations; and (c) transgresses guidelines of regulatory authorities; hence the said notice is vitiated by fraud; it is non-est, and void ab initio; Respondents have violated statutory, regulatory and procedural provisions of the enactment; defied fundamental principles of judicial procedure; contravened principles of natural justice; transgressed constitutional rights of Appellants under Article 300-4 of the Constitution of India and

5.A.No.544/2022

there is no effective alternative remedy available to the Appellants. In light of the foregoing contentions and grounds, the Appellants have sought to quash the impugned symbolic possession notice.

¶59

Respondent Bank filed its statement of objections along with photocopies of notices issued under the Act, postal receipts, postal acknowledgements, paper publications and statement of account marked as Annexures-Rl to R4, It is, inter alia, contended that the Securitization Application filed by the Appellants under Section L7 of the Act is thoroughly misconceived, utterly malicious and devoid of any merits and not maintainable either in law or in facts; Appellants have no cause of action for filing the present application. In the year 2015, the Appellants availed Term Loan of Rs.95.00 crore from the erstwhile Syndicate Bank for construction of a commercial project "Aishwarya Mall", situated at 27, K.G. Road, Gandhinagar, Majestic, Bangalore. The Appellants had also executed various loan documents including mortgage documents in this regard i.e. (i) Charge over the schedule immovable property by executing Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 19.10.2015, (ii) creating charge over Escrow Account of the project, and (iii) Charge over all the current assets of the company, with^{personal guarantee} of Appellants No.2 and 3. The Appellants failed to obtain permission from BBMP and only in the

S.A.No.544/2022

year 2016 after obtaining order from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Appellants proceeded with the project rvith consistent delay. Respondent Bank by its letter dated 09.01.2020 sanctioned restructuring of credit facilities with further release from the undrawn portion of the sanctioned amount i.e. total Term Loan was Rs.76.52 crore, out of which, the Respondent Bank disbursed Rs.54.20 crore and from this, Appellant No.1 paid 9.68 crore. Respondent Bank sanctiohed release of Rs.32 crore subject to terms and conditions contained in the sanction of restructuring of credit facility. Also the Respondent Bank sanctioned conversion of overdue amount oi interest amounting to Rs.2.57 crore into FITL with a repayment period of 6 months starting from July 2020. Since 30,07.2OL9, that is much prior to the pandemic occurred, the operation and conduct of the loan accounts had become irregular; despite repeated requests and reminders, the Appellants failed to adhere to the repayment terms of the credit facilities and ultimately the loan accounts were declared as non-performing asset on 30.10.2019 as per the RBI guidelines.

¶64

In the year 2020, the Appellants further approached the erstwhile Syndicate Bank, seeking restructuring of the Term Loan facility of Rs.95 crore and balance release of Rs.32 crore as full and final settlement of the balance undrawn portion of Rs.40.80 crore. The said facility was restructured by the

¶65

¶66

5.A.No.s44l2022

¶67

Syndicate Bank vide its sanction letter dated 09.01.2020 with the condition that the^project to be completed within June 2020. In the meantime, Syndicate Bank merged with the Respondent Bank-Canara Bank on 01.04.2020 vide Notification issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services. Despite the restructure, the Appellants failed to maintain financial discipline in the accounts and stopped making payments since March 2020. The Respondent vide mail dated 12.05.2020^gave reminder to the Appellants for payment of interest on moratorium and FITL. By a letter dated 16.05.2020, the Appellants requested for extension of time to complete the project due to COVID-19. When their proposal was taken up with the competent authority, the same was not considered favourably by the Respondent Bank as the Appellants^{failed to} comply with the sanction terms of the restructuring^proposaland failed to serve interest on the loan during the^{period. Sincethe} account of^party was already under^{NPA, the Appellant was not} eligible for any of the reliefs declared^{by the Government during} COVID-19 and the same was not considered^{favourablyby the} competent authority. However, after that also^{sufficient time} was given to the Appellants to complete the^{project and actionin} account was started only in the^month of^{August 2O2l and} possession notice in the month of April 2022 and then in July 2022, but still after a lapse of considerable^{time, the Appellant} has failed to complete the^project till date.^Finding no^other

¶68

¶69

s.A.No.544/2022

¶70

alternative, the Respondent Bank issued demand notice dated 12.08.2021 under Section 13(2) of the Act calling upon them to pay the outstanding loan amount of Rs.66,80,53,736.7t due as on 31.07.2021 together with interest within 60 days from the date of the notice. After its receipt, the Appellants issued a reply dated 18.08.2021 admitting the loan facilities and the defaults made therein and the Respondent Bank duly replied to the Appellants under Section 13(34) of the Act which has been duly served. Subsequently, the Appellants issued letters dated 01.09.2021 and 15.11.2021 for restructuring the loan which were rejected by the competent authority of the Respondent Bank. As the Appellants failed to comply with the requirement of demand notice, Respondent Bank issued possession notice dated 28.04.2022 under Section 13(4) of the Act which was not acted upon by the Respondent Bank as there were defects in mentioning the date/amount of the demand notice and the measurement of the schedule property. The Respondent Bank issued another possession notice under Section 13( ) of the Act on O2.O7.2022 and took symbolic possession of the schedule property; affixed the possession notice on the conspicuous part of the schedule property; duly served it upon the Appellants; published the possession notice in two widely circulated newspapers viz. "The New Indian Express',, English Edition and "Samyukta Karnataka", Kannada Edition, both dated O3.O7.2022. Respondent Bank contended that every step and

5.A.No.544/2022

action till date initiated by it is under due process of law to recover its dues which in the aggregate as on 14.10.2O22 is Rs.58.39 crore and further interest till date of realization. It is further contended that the Appellants are making up false, baseless and reckless allegations in connivance with the borrowers and guarantors by way of afterthought in an attempt to keep the subject property out of the process initiated against them under the Act and no lawful or valid ground has been or could be made by the Appellants in support of their purported reliefs. The Respondent Bank in its preliminary submissions, inter alia, stated that after the account turned NPA, the Appellants requested restructuring of the account which was considered by the Respondent Bank to complete the project. The bank also released the amount of Rs.5.28 crore, but the Appellant failed to serve the interest on the loan as a result the restructuring permitted in the account failed and the account turned NPA from 30.10.2019. However, even after that also the Appellant has failed to complete the project till date and occupancy certificate from BBMP has not been obtained by the Appellant even after lapse of 7^years from the date of sanction of the loan amount and the Appellant has still not started the commercial operations as the mall is still under construction as on date. Further, as per the terms of the restructuring, the Appellant has undertaken not to take any fresh^project until the completion of the mall in^question, but in^gross violation of the

¶75

5.A.No.54412022

¶76

¶77

undertaking given by the Appellant herein, the Appellant went on to develop one complete layout at Shimoga as a result, he is not able to complete the project/mall till date. The project was supposed to be completed within 22 months from the date of sanction in the year 2015, however the bank granted the extension of DDCO of 10 months to the Appellant from 30.09.2017 to 30.06.2018, in spite of the same, the Appellant failed to complete the same within the stipulated timeframe. Even after that, the bank again extended the DCCO for three months from 30.06.2018 to 30.09.2018, still the Appellant failed to complete the mall even after extending the DCCO for the second time. The account of the Appellant was in stress even before the outbreak of pandemic and as such the Respondent Bank has given ample opportunities and time to regulate the account but no result whatsoever. The Appellants are trying to veil their own laches taking undue advantage of COVID-19 situation which is impermissible under law. The account turned NPA in the month of October 2019 and thereafter NpA restructuring has been done in the account in the month of December 2019. Since the terms of the restructuring were not complied with, the account turned NPA from the original date. In respect of the valuation, if the Appellants had doubt, they would have come forward with a higher valuation at that point of time, but nothing being done except raising vague and baseless allegations against the Respondent. Respondent Bank further

¶78

s.A.No.544/2022

¶79

¶80

contended that the^{Appellantsare takingundue advantage of the} law and the adherence^{of the law and the rules are duly} complied with by the^{Respondent Bank and thereforeno} question of any deviance therein and^{due compliance has been} made in all aspects^{under the provision of the Act and Rules.In} view of the above facts,^{the RespondentBank prayed for} dismissal of the APPeal^{with cost.}

¶81

On the above background,^{Ihave gonethrough the} available records and^{heard argumentsaddressedby Learned} Counsel for the^{partiesand the followingpoints arise for} consideiation:

¶82

(a) Whether the Appellants^{have made out a case to} allow the APPeal?^and

¶83

(b) To what relief, the^{parties are entitled?}

¶84

REASONS

¶85

After hearing the^{Learned Counsels of both the parties} and also on^{going through the availablematerials on record, it is} observed that the^{Appellants have filed the presentSA} challenging the^{symbolicpossessionnoticedated 02 'O7 '2022} issued by the^{RespondentBank. Availment of loan by the} Appellants from the^{RespondentBank is not in dispute'After} declaring the loan^{account of the Appellants as NPA on}

¶86

¶87

S.A.No.544,/2022

¶88

30.10.2019, the Respondent Bank issued a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 12.08.202.1 demanding payment of an amount of Rs.66,80,53,736.71 due as on 3L.O7.2021 from the Appellants, on receipt of which, the Appellants have communicated to the Respondent Bank vide Reply dated 18.08.2021, admitting the loan facilities and the defaults made therein. To the said reply, Respondent Ban k has responded under Section 13(34) of the Act vide its letter dated OL.O9.2O2L which are evident from the copies produced by the Respondent Bank collectively marked as Annexure-Rl. As the Appellants failed to comply with the requirement of demand notice, Respondent Bank issued possession notice under Section 13(a) of the Act dated 28.04.2022 and took symbolic possession of the secured property. Affixture of impugned possession notice dated O2.O7.2022 and publication of the notice in the newspapers would be evident as per the copies of documents collectively marked at Annexure-R3. In this regard, it is a known fact that SARFAESI Act is a special legislation. It empowers the Banks to recover dues from defaulting borrowers without the intervention of Tribu nals/Courts. Copy of statement of account produced at Annexure-R4 reveals that the conduct of the account is not satisfactory. It was not in dispute that the loan account of the Appellants was declared as a Non performing

¶89

S.A.No.544/2022

¶90

¶91

Assets on 31.10.2019. It^{is statedthat the account has become} NPA in the month of October^{2019 and after that, restructuring} was done in the account during the^{month of December 2019'} Such accounts classified as^{NPA and NPAaccounts were retained} in the same category on^{restructuringby the lenders unless} upgraded only when all the^{outstanding loan/facilitiesin the} account demonstrated^{satisfactory performance.In the instant} case, it is seen that after^{restructuringof the account,the} payments of the Appellants defaulted.^{Therefore,the account} would be treated as^{NPA from the aforesaiddate i'e' 31't} October 2019. Consequently,^{the RespondentBankinitiated} proceedings in accordance^{with the SARFAESIAct and Security} Interest^{(Enforcement) Rules,2OO2 to recover the money,which} was one of the^{ways with it to secure the lent amount' Once} that is so, this^{Tribunal has nothingto interfere'Further, the} Appellants have not^{madeout any groundfor interference of this} Tribunal for^{quashing and settingaside the symbolicpossession} notice dated O2.O7.2022^{issued by the Respondent Bank' As} such, the Appeal^{failsand is liable to be dismissed' I, therefore,} pass following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

In the result, S.A.No.54412022^{is dismissed.}

¶94

¶95

5.A.No.544,/202?

¶96

Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending IAs,

¶97

if any, also stand closed as infructuous.

¶98

There will be no order as to cost,

¶99

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24th day of April 2013)

¶100

+ash+

¶101

o' *u*

¶102

(IMTIA2 ALI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, BENGALURU

Ms Aishwarya Heights Infra Private Limited v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Aishwarya Heights Infra Private Limited v. Canara 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

Mukesh Kumar versus Punjab National Bank

Central Bank of India versus Sri Dharmendra Awasthi

Canara Bank versus Balappa

Hdfc Bank versus Sh Ajaib Singh (Since Deceased)

State Bank of India versus M/S Shree Krishna Motors

P Ganesh versus M /S. Bajaj Housing Finance Limited