Dismissed

Meera Financial Consultancy Services v. Ugro Capital Limited

DRT25 Sept 2023SA/601/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act contending non-compliance of demand notice service and NPA classification. The Tribunal relied on documentary evidence proving account default and statutory compliance.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed, all pending interference applications were closed, and no order was passed on costs.

Meera Financial Consultancy Services versus Ugro Capital Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 27^th day of September, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

SA No.601 of 2022

¶6

M/s Meera Financial Consultancy Services Represented by its Proprietor Mrs. Venkatasubba Rao Swathi Meera @ Swathi Meera No.E7P, AVM Asta, Vadapalani

¶7

Chennai – 600 026

¶8

Mrs. Venkatasubba Rao Swathi Meera @ Swathi Meera W/o Mr. Gurukaleeswaran B A4L, AVM Asta, P.V. Rajamannar Salai KK Nagar, Chennai – 600 078

¶9

Mr. Gurukaleeswaran. B S/o Mr. Balasubramanian A4L, AVM Asta, P.V. Rajamannar Salai KK Nagar, Chennai – 600 076 …Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

UGRO Capital Limited Represented by its Authorised Officer Mr. G. Venkatesan Registered Office: Equinox Business Park Tower 3, 4^th Floor, LSB Road, Kurla (West) Mumbai – 400 070 …Respondent Counsel for Applicants : M/s J. Prince Counsel for Respondent : M/s V. Balasubramani

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This Securitization Application in short SA is filed u/s 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 possession notice dated 30.9.2022.

¶14

The applicant was sanctioned with a Secured Term Loan for Rs.39,50,000/which was repayable with interest in 84 equal monthly instalments. It is

¶15

¶16

contented by the applicant that despite payments of the account, the same was declared NPA. It is also stated that the 1^st applicant alone was served with a demand notice, for which a reply was issued. It is contented by the applicant that in reply to the demand notice various remittances were made by the applicant.

¶17

It is also contended that without following the provisions of the statute the impugned possession notice is affixed. In the grounds also the applicant is reiterating the non-service of demand notice on all the borrowers, non compliance of Rule 3A and non affixture of possession notice.

¶18

The respondent filed their counter denying the averments in the SA. It is contented that the measures taken by them are in accordance with statute. The respondent had along with their counter had produced the following documents viz., Sanction letter, Memorandum of deposit of title deeds, Demand notice, postal receipts and postal track, Paper publication of demand notice, Evidence as to affixture of demand notice, Possession notice and postal receipts, Paper publication of possession notice, Affixture of possession notice, Statement of accounts and Authorization. The respondent had along with the memo SR.5128 had produced the proof of reply issued to the representation.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides and considered the rival contentions.

¶20

The applicant is claiming that their account is illegally classified as NPA despite prompt repayments. This contention is disproved by the respondent as they produced the statement of accounts which evidences that the account was in default and is declared NPA in accordance with the guidelines.

¶21

¶22

The next contention as to the alleged non-service of demand notice is also denied specifically by the respondent. The respondent had produced the proof of service of demand notice as the postal track record evidencing receipt of notice one of the borrower. However the respondent had produced the proof of paper publication and affixture on the 2^nd applicant’s premises. In respect of the 3^rd applicant, it is the case of the respondent that the entry to the premises where 3^rd applicant is residing is restricted and even a communication was forwarded to the secretary of the complex requesting permission. The respondent had along with their memo (SR No.5128) produced the copy of the said communication. In view of the evidence that the respondent was prevented from affixing the notice and also taking notice of the fact that the demand notice is communicated through “whatsapp”, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no infirmity in the issuance and service of demand notice.

¶23

The respondent had also produced the proof of compliance of Section 13(3A) as the representation forwarded by the 1^st applicant is considered and disposed of. The applicant is not disputing the document produced by the respondent as additional document to prove the above fact.

¶24

In regard to possession notice also, the respondent had produced the proof of service, affixture and publication which evidences due compliance of Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

¶25

No other contention had been taken or argued by the applicant. In view of the discussions and finding as entered therein, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no merit in the SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 27^th day of September, 2023)

¶29

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

¶30

Meera Financial Consultancy Services v. Ugro Capital Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Financial Consultancy Services v. Ugro Capital 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

State Bank of India versus K. Anandakumar

Canara Bank versus S Elangovan and Another

M/s Deutsche Bank Ag versus M/s S N Km and Sons Timbers Private Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. S. Jainullabudeen

State Bank of India versus Mr. a. Vijaya Kumar

Canara Bank versus K. Ganesan