Applicants challenged a possession notice issued by the respondent bank under SARFAESI Act, alleging improper service of the demand notice and incorrect calculation of dues. The tribunal dismissed the application, holding no infirmities in the procedure and allowing the bank to proceed with recovery.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S.A.62 of 2023 21.04.2023
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 21th day of April, 2023
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 62 of 2023
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s.K.A.Ramakrishnan. Counsel for Respondent : M/s.N.Somasundar.
ORDER
1. This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 31.10.2022 issued by
respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.34,23,033/-.
2
S.A.62 of 2023 21.04.2023
It is the case of applicants that the returned cover with endorsement as ‘refused’ indicates that respondent bank has to cause service of demand notice as provided under Section 3 of the Act by causing affixture of the same on the schedule property and by paper publication. However, respondent bank having only a returned cover from postal authorities with the endorsement as ‘refused’, has proceeded further with their SARFAESI actions and issued the impugned possession notice. Therefore, Ld. counsel contended that since the very demand notice itself is not served on the applicants as warranted under the Act, there is violation of the provisions of the Act by the respondent bank acting as secured creditor and determining their mortgage rights. Ld. counsel also submitted that after the date of NPA, applicants had deposited a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and again further sum of Rs.3,41,000/- to the credit of their loan account as of 02.06.2022, but respondent bank has not taken that into their statement of account and demanded the same in the impugned possession notice as was demanded in the demand notice. It therefore concludes that the amount demanded in the impugned possession notice is not the amount due to the respondent bank and even on that count, the actions of the respondent bank are liable to be set aside. Submitting so, Ld. counsel prayed for appropriate orders.
3
S.A.62 of 2023 21.04.2023
4
S.A.62 of 2023 21.04.2023
their default, owing to which, respondent bank is constrained to continue their SARFAESI actions for recovery of their dues. Thus submitting, Ld. counsel prayed for appropriate orders.
(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 21st day of April, 2023)
Sd/-
(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
J.Hemalatha
U.M.Jaishankar
The Authorised Officer, Bank of India
Ganapathi K.R.K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
