Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's single application challenging a SARFAESI possession notice issued by the respondent bank for unsecured credit card dues, vacating any interim order and directing no recovery of SARFAESI expenses.
Possession notice quashed; direction not to debit SARFAESI expenses; interim order vacated; pending IAs 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.
1
SA No. 91 of 2023
22.08.2023
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2023
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 91 of 2023
R. Benon Shalin,
S/o. A. Rajamani, Benith Villa, Plot No.10, Surya Garden, K.K. Thazhalai, Madhavaram Milk Colony, Chennai – 600 051. ….Applicant
Vs.
Indian Overseas Bank, TV Market Branch, Represented by its Authorised Officer, No. 189, T.H. Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019. ….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P. Jesus Moris Ravi Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Ananda Gomathy
ORDER
of a sum of Rs.50,38,666.43p from applicant.
bank for a sum of Rs. 25 Lakhs, which was disbursed on various dates. It is submitted
that applicants were regular in repaying their dues without any delay. It is the further case of applicants, that at the time of availing housing loan, they had also availed credit
2
SA No. 91 of 2023
22.08.2023
card loan with a limit of Rs.1 Lakh and Jewel loans from respondent bank. It is the case of applicants that they had preferred a proposal for OTS vide representation dated 02.08.2021 to respondent bank, to settle the dues in the credit card account. But however, respondent bank did not reply to the same. It is also the case of applicants that they frequently approached respondent bank for redeeming their jewels by paying the entire dues on the jewel loan accounts, however respondent bank failed to accept the same. It is the further case of applicants that although they were regular in repaying their Housing loan and Jewel loans, to the shock and surprise of applicants, demand notice dated 16.05.2022 was issued by respondent bank wherein all the loan accounts (Housing Loan, Credit card loan and three Jewel Loans) were declared as an NPA on 30.06.2021. It is the case of applicants that after receipt of demand notice dated 16.05.2022, applicants had remitted a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- in all the three Jewel loan accounts and that applicants are ready and willing to settle the entire outstanding Jewel loan accounts in a sum of Rs.9,04,195/-. It is the further case of applicants that after issuance of demand notice, applicants had remitted a total sum of Rs.2,02,749.50p in the housing loan account. It is submitted that respondent bank without considering the same had proceeded further and issued the impugned possession notice dated 09.01.2023, wherein the outstanding amount claimed is unjust and baseless.
3
SA No. 91 of 2023
22.08.2023
obligations. Ld.Counsel submits that despite applicant expressing his readiness to enter into an OTS with regard to the credit card loan, respondent bank has not been considering the same and has invoked the SARFAESI action for recovery of credit card over dues, for which no mortgage has been created. Ld.Counsel also submitted that the actions of the respondent bank are not sustainable since there is no security interest that is created for recovery of the credit card dues, while the other two loans, being the housing loan and jewel loan against which security is created are very much in order and applicant have been regular in his repayment schedule, owing to which declaring the account as an NPA or the subsequent actions of issuance of demand notice have no legal validity. It is the case of applicant that he is ready and willing to discharge their debts, but however respondent bank has been wilfully evading such a proposal from the borrower while intending to proceed under SARFAESI without any basis. Ld.Counsel further submits that the very invocation of SARFAESI when the secured debts could not be declared as an NPA is itself fallacious and therefore the actions of the respondent bank do not survive. It is also submitted that respondent bank has issued their SARFAESI notices against all the three loan accounts while admitting that the over dues are only in the credit card loan account, which is an unsecured debt and no SARFAESI action can be initiated for recovery of an unsecured loan. Submitting so, Ld.Counsel prayed for passing appropriate orders.
4
SA No. 91 of 2023
22.08.2023
guidelines.
(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 22nd day of August, 2023)
Sd/-
(GANAPATHI K.R.K)
PRESIDING OFFICER
R. Benon Shalin
Indian Overseas Bank
Ganapathi K.R.K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
