Dismissed

Ms Technor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Deustche Bank

DRT22 Sept 2023SA/589/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging Section 14 order. The court rejected claims of illegal NPA classification and insufficient notice service, upholding the bank's compliance with SARFAESI Act procedures.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application (SA) dismissed; pending Inter Application (IA) closed; no orders as to cost.

Ms Technor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus Deustche Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 22^nd day of September, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No.589 of 2022

¶6

M/s Technor Solutions Private Limited Formerly known as Avani R Tech Solutions Private Limited Rep. by its Director V. Radhika No.103, Balamurugan Garden Okkiam, Thoraipakkam

¶7

Chennai – 600 097

¶8

Ms. V. Radhika A6-403, Adair Akshaya Homes Kzhipattur, Kelambakkam Chennai – 603 030 …Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Authorised Officer M/s Deutsche Bank AG 4-4A, West Tower, Sunny Side Shafi Mohammad Road Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 006 …Respondent Counsel for Applicants : M/s P.V. Ramachandran Counsel for Respondent : Mr. T.K.M. Sai Krishnan

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This Securitization Application in short SA is filed under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), herein after been referred as SARFAESI Act or the Act as the case be with a prayer to set aside the order obtained by the respondent under Section 14 of the Act.

¶13

The 1^st applicant is a Private Limited Company carrying on business computer software. The 2^nd respondent is the managing Director and the owner of the Mortgaged property. The applicants are admitting the availment of two loan

¶14

¶15

against properties and cash credit facilities for Rs.88,40,000/-, Rs.61,60,000/and Rs.100,00,000/- respectively. It is contented by the respondent that they were promptly making repayments and dispute that the account is wrongly classified on NPA. It is also stated that a demand notice was issued to the 1^st applicant during covid-19 pandemic, which according to the applicant is against RBI guidelines. It is also contended that the 2^nd applicant and her son had not received the notice.

¶16

It is further contented by the applicant that the respondent had not given credit amount, remitted by the applicant. It is the further case of the applicant that the possession notice was affixed. In respect of the same it is the case of the applicant that the possession notice was not served on the applicant and that the possession notice was not served or affixed as required under the statute. The applicant states that huge amounts are due from Andhra Government to the applicant and the same was the reason for delayed payments.

¶17

Hence the impugned measures are challenged on the alleged illegal classification of account as NPA and alleged flaws in measure taken by the respondent especially is not following rule 3, 8(1) and 8(2) of the rules. Along with the SA, the applicant had produced the following documents viz., Demand notice issued to the 1^st Applicant dated 06.02.2021, Possession notice dated 14.12.2021 affixed by the respondent, Copy of the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Magistrate in WMP No.8797/2022.

¶18

The respondent entered appearance and filed their counter refuting the contentions taken in the SA and contenting that the measures taken by them are in accordance with the statute. It is further contented that only as the

¶19

¶20

borrowers filed to repay the amount the same was declared as NPA. It is also contended that the only as the applicant failed to pay back the amount despite being called upon to do so, the present measures are initiated. In respect of the measures also, it is the case of the respondent that they had followed the procedure as prescribed under the Act and Rules.

¶21

Along with the counter, the respondent had produced the following documents viz., Demand notice dated 6.2.2021, its despatch proof, service proof, proof of affixture and paper publication and CERSAI Reports.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsels for both sides and considered the rival contentions. The only issue that is to be decided is as to the legality of the measures initiated and continued by the respondent leading to the Section 14 orders.

¶23

The first contention of the applicant is that the account is wrongly classified as NPA. The contention of the applicant as to the alleged prompt payments is denied by the respondent. Despite the said specific denial, the applicant had not produced any proof as to the so claimed prompt payments. In the absence of any proof as to the so claimed prompt payments, much less any payments, this Tribunal is of the view that the contention of the applicant in this regard is to be discarded.

¶24

The next contention of the applicant as to the alleged non service of demand notice on the borrowers is refuted by the respondent by producing the proof of service of demand notice. The main contention of the applicant as to the non service on one of the borrowers “Tejas” is disproved by the acknowledgment card evidencing service on Tejas. Even though the applicant contents that the same is not served as Tejas, this Tribunal is not enticed to accept the said

¶25

¶26

contentions. Though Section 27 of General clause Act cannot be put to operation by virtue of specific mandate under provisio to Rule 3 of the rules, the presumption under section 114(f) of the Evidence Act can be put in operation, since the acknowledgment card showing the receipt on the address of Tejas is produced.

¶27

The next contention as to the claimed non service of notice on 2^nd applicant is to be viewed in view of the fact that the SA is filed by the 1^st applicant as represented by the 2^nd applicant and the 1^st applicant is duly served with the notice. Hence it cannot be held that any prejudice caused to the applicant on account of such procedural lapse any. This view is taken as the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in “L &T Housing Finance Limited Vs. Trishul Developers dated 27.10.2020 reported in 2020 (10) SCC 659 has categorically held that hyper technical defence had to be discarded unless serious prejudice to the borrower is established.

¶28

The applicant‟s contention as to the alleged non service of possession notice is also countered by the respondent by producing the proof as to service, affixture and publication of the possession notice. Since it is no longer „Res intergra‟ that the symbolic possession is not sine qua non for Section 14 measures, this Tribunal is not adverting to the symbolic possession notice and its service.

¶29

In order to prove the entitlement of applicant for initiation and continuation of measures, the respondent had produced the evidence as to the registration of Security Interest as the Central Registry.

¶30

¶31

In view of the discussion as held in previous paragraphs and findings entered there in, this Tribunal is of the view that the contentions as taken by the applicant are devoid of any merit and there is no merit in the SA.

¶32

In the result TSA stands dismissed, all pending IA‟s stands closed, no orders as to cost. Issue copies in accordance with Rule 16 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993.

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 22^nd day of September, 2023)

¶34

Sd/(T. RAJESH ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶35

Ms Technor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Deustche Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Technor Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Deustche Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs S Saroja versus State Bank of India

S Paldurai versus Canara Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s.Sun Traders

A C Velmurugan versus City Union Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. v. Ammani

State Bank of India versus Mr. P. Panneerselvam