Dismissed

Sri Sai Hari Exports v. The Authourised Officer Bajaj Finance Limited

DRT14 Jun 2023SA/58/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the SARFAESI application challenging a possession notice due to default and non-prosecution. The court directed that institution expenses under the notice not be debited to the loan account as the institution failed to establish procedural compliance.

What did the court decide?

Impugned possession notice expenses not to be debited to borrowers loan account; other pending IAs closed.

Sri Sai Hari Exports versus The Authourised Officer Bajaj… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A.58 of 2023 14.06.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 58 of 2023

¶7

M/s.Sri Sai Hari Exporters, Rep. by its Proprietor, No.8, 1^st Street Arumugam Nagar, Madipakkam, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600 091. 2. Mr.S.Hariharan, No.224, 8^th Street, Malleswari Nagar, Selaiyur, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600 126. 3. Mr.Mahadevan Sankaran, No.224, 8^th Street, Malleswari Nagar, Selaiyur, Chennai, Tamilnadu – 600 126. ….Applicants Vs. The Authorised Officer, M/s.Bajaj Finance Limited, 8^th Floor, 177, Delta Wing, Raheja Towers, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ….Respondent Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s.G.Sanjeevi. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.M.Arunachalam.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

Counsel for applicants and representative Ld. counsel for respondent financial institution are present. Representative counsel for respondent prayed time for filing counter and typed set of documents. Refused.

¶10

¶11

S.A.58 of 2023 14.06.2023

¶12

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 27.10.2022 issued by respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.67,35,232/- from applicants.

¶13

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for both the parties.

¶14

Neither the borrower nor the respondent is interested to prosecute the matter or are seeking any resolution for the issue. Applicants could not make out any tenable infirmities in the impugned possession notice.

¶15

Hence, SA stands dismissed for default and non-prosecution, however without costs. Respondent financial institution is directed not to debit the subject impugned possession notice expenses to the borrowers loan account for not establishing their procedure as warranted under law.

¶16

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶17

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶18

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

¶19

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 14^th day of June, 2023)

¶20

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

Sri Sai Hari Exports v. The Authourised Officer Bajaj Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sai Hari Exports v. The Authourised Officer Bajaj Finance Limited

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

Canara Bank versus Total Supply Chain And Food Solution Pvt. Ltd. And Four Others

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Caris Pure Processing Company Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs Vijay Vani Panati versus The Authourised Officer Piramal Capital Housing Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus Anbalagan

Rr Manohar versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

M s Venishaa Foundations versus Canara Bank