Dismissed

Imaanuvel Jeyaprabhu v. Axis Bank

DRT27 Jun 2023SA/564/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Section 17 SARFAESI application challenging a bank's sale of collateral. The tribunal found no infirmities in the sale procedure as the applicant failed to prove non-compliance with statutory mandates.

What did the court decide?

SA stands dismissed without costs; interim order vacated; all other IAs closed.

Imaanuvel Jeyaprabhu versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 564 of 2022 27.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 564 of 2022

¶7

I.Imaanuvel Jeyaprabhu

¶8

S/o Israiel Arumugam No.864, Vallam, Ward No.4 Vangi Nagar, Senkottai Taluk Vallam Thirunelveli – 627 809 ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Authorised Officer

¶11

Axis Bank Retail Landing and Payment Group (South Zonal Office / Branch) Legal & Support Team, 2^nd Floor Door No.31, Old No.14, South Mada Street Mylapore Chennai – 600 004 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Kamachi.D, R.Kamala Devi & K.R.Pratap Chander & Swati.B Counsel for Respondent : M/s. T.K.M.Sai Krishnan & S.Sharmila Devi

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the sale held on 29.10.2022 pursuant to sale notice dated 20.09.2022 issued by respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.67,77,011.97p from applicant.

¶16

Heard Ld.Counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶17

¶18

S.A. 564 of 2022 27.06.2023

¶19

It is the case of applicant that they had availed a loan of Rs.40 Lakhs from the respondent bank and were regular in discharge of their debt. However, respondent bank without considering the payments caused by applicant herein, had classified the loan account as NPA and did not serve the alleged demand notice on the borrower. It is also submitted that respondent bank has not followed the procedure while issuing the impugned sale notice or the earlier possession notice, since none of the notices were served in a manner known to law. Ld.Counsel also submits that there was no affixture of the sale notice and respondent bank has not furnished any information with regard to the auction purchaser in the sale concluded on 29.10.2022. Ld.Counsel submits that applicant intends to negotiate with the auction purchaser by adding him as a party herein and intends to redeem their mortgage, if adequate time is granted.

¶20

Whereas Ld.Counsel for respondent bank had filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions. Ld.Junior counsel for respondent bank had demonstrated the actions of respondent bank and submitted that the demand notice has been duly served on the borrower and the acknowledgement is furnished in the typed set of documents. Ld.Junior counsel had also demonstrated the service of possession notice as well as the impugned sale notice. It is also submitted on behalf of respondent bank that all the notices, as contemplated under the act, as well as the subsequent actions of affixture and paper publication, as warranted under law, are duly followed by the respondent bank herein and the same are filed in the typed set of documents along with counter. Ld.Counsel also submitted that the information with regard to the particulars of Auction purchaser is duly furnished on the applicant, but they did not choose to take any action or informed about any alleged settlement between them. Ld.Counsel further

¶21

¶22

S.A. 564 of 2022 27.06.2023

¶23

submits that since the sale is concluded in favour of Auction purchaser and sale certificate is also duly registered and possession of property is also delivered, nothing survives in the present SA and it will be open for applicant to deal with the issue with the Auction purchaser in any manner they wish to and respondent bank has no say in the same. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel for respondent bank prayed for appropriate orders.

¶24

In the circumstances, as applicant could not make out any infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned sale notice and concluding the same on the scheduled date in favour of Auction purchaser, there are no tenable merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

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

¶26

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶27

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

¶28

(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 27^th day of June, 2023)

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Imaanuvel Jeyaprabhu v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imaanuvel Jeyaprabhu v. Axis Bank

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

S Jayaraman S O Samban versus Idbi Bank

M s Sri Ganapathi Enterprises versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

B Suresh versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Ms Nataraja Agencies versus The A.O. Reliance Commercial Finance Limited

M s Hi Commands Tech India Limited versus Shriram Finance Limited

P Esthar versus Axis Bank