The Debt Recovery Tribunal disposed of an application seeking to set aside a possession notice as infructuous after the respondent bank ceased pursuing the notice. The court explicitly reserved opinion on the legality of a separate demand notice.
The SA was closed as infructuous; all pending IAs were closed. No orders as to cost.
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 24th day of March, 2023
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No.94 of 2022
Mr. K. Subramanian S/o Mr. K. Kannan Gounder No.780, TBJ Raja Baby Mundy Complex Opposite to Lakshmi Theatre Arani, Tiruvannamalai District – 623 301 …Applicant
Versus
The Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda, Arani Branch No.51 to 53, Sathyamurthy Road 111A, Big Bazaar Street Arani – 632 301 …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : M/s G. Vijayakumar Counsel for Respondent : M/s K. Radhakrishnamurthy
FINAL ORDER
1
16.2.2022 the applicant had filed a petition IA.541 of 2021 pointing out the issuance of a fresh demand notice in regard to the same facility which is the subject matter in this SA. On 21.2.2022 this Tribunal had observed that the issuance of a fresh demand notice when a stay order against earlier proceedings was in operation is not proper. Taking note of the above situation this Tribunal had granted an interim order in this SA and the interim order continued. When the matter came up for hearing on 3.3.2023 along with SA No.151 of 2022, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent is not pursing with the possession notice which is the subject matter in this SA. In view of the decision of the bank not to pursuing further with the possession notice, nothing survives in this SA. Hence this SA is closed as infructuous. It is made clear that this Tribunal had not expressed any view as to the legality of the demand notice dated 30.10.2021. With the above observation, the SA stands disposed of infructuous.
(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2023)
Sd/(T. RAJESH ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the application filed to set aside the possession notice should be allowed in view of the bank's decision not to pursue further with the notice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. K. Subramanian S/o Mr. K. Kannan Gounder
The Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda
T. Rajesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
