The applicant challenged an order enforcing security interest under the SARFAESI Act, alleging non-NPA status and procedural defects. The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove regular repayment and found the statutory procedure was followed, dismissing the application.
The application was dismissed and all pending instances were closed.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 16th day of November, 2023
PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No.655/2022
Mr.Ramesh Kumar, S/o.Mr.Kasinathan, Plot No.5, Block No.42, Door No.10/5, Ward No.7, Vallalar Nagar, Vilvarayanatham Village, Cuddalore – 607 001. … Applicant. Vs.
The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd Floor, Indian Red Cross Buildings, #32, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. … Respondent. Counsel for Applicant : Mr.G.Sanjeevi. Counsel for Respondent : Mrs.S.R.Sumathy.
O R D E R
Rs.1,28,00,000/- from the respondent in the year 2016 which according
2
to the applicant had been regularly servicing. It is contended by the applicant that the applicant never allowed the account to become NPA and despite the same loan was classified as NPA in violation of guidelines of RBI. It is also stated that during October, 2021 persons claiming to be a recovery agent of the respondent and affixed one notice dt.30.09.2021 which according to the applicant is the possession notice which is issued without issuing the demand notice. It is also stated that the impugned proceedings are taken without following the mandate of the statute.
3
by the respondent that since no repayments were made in the account, the same was declared as NPA and the demand notice was issued on 21.04.2021. The respondent further contends that the demand notice is returned unserved in one address and served in the other one. The possession notice issued on 30.09.2021 which was duly served and published as required under the statute. It is also pointed out that another SA 356/2021 was filed before DRT-I impugning the possession notice and another SA 263/2022 was also filed before DRT-I challenging the sale notice. Along with counter, the respondent had produced the following documents:
contentions of the applicant in the light of the averments in the SA and the rebuttal of the respondent as stated in the counter affidavit. The documentary evidence produced by both sides were also taken into consideration. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:
4
Since both these issues are inter-related the same were gone into and decided together.
5
( Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 16th day of November, 2023 )
Sd./(T.RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the measures initiated by the respondent leading to the procurement of Section 14 orders are in accordance with the statute?
Whether the applicant is entitled to set aside the impugned order?
What orders are to be passed?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramesh Kumar
The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India
T. Rajesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
