Allowed

Rajesh Balaguru Moorthy v. Hdfc Bank

DRT18 Jul 2023SA/97/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Application challenged a notice to take possession under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal allowed the application, set aside the impugned notice, restored possession to the mortgagor, and directed the applicant to furnish details of the deceased borrower's legal representatives.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice to take possession set aside, possession restored to mortgagor, respondent directed not to debit expenses, applicant directed to furnish legal representative details.

Rajesh Balaguru Moorthy versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

S.A No.97 of 2023

18.07.2023

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 97 of 2023

¶9

Rajesh Balaguru Moorthy, S/o Balaguru Moorthy, No. 2/1036A, Plot No. 12, Sri Sakthi Nagar, kumarasamypet, Vellegoundan Playam Village, Elakkiampatti, Dharmapuri Tamil Nadu – 636 701. ….Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, (HDFC) HDFC House, No. 51, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. 2. The Branch Manager, HDFC, No. 51, HDFC Ltd., HDFC House, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. ….Respondents Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K. Gandhi Kumar, Counsel for Respondent : M/s. K. J. Parthasarathy

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This SA is filed challenging Notice to take Possession dated 16.01.2023 issued by respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,95,308/-.

¶14

Today a memo is filed on behalf of respondent before the Registry, submitting

¶15

therein that the impugned notice is only an intimation and does not constitute a measure

S.A No.97 of 2023

18.07.2023

under the SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that applicant in his SA had stated that co-borrower died on 29.04.2017, however particulars of legal representatives are not furnished by applicant. Hence it is prayed that applicant may be directed to furnish details of legal representatives of deceased borrower. Respondent is recalling Section 13(2) notice dated 28.09.2022 and notice to take possession dated 16.01.2023 with liberty to initiate proceedings afresh.

¶20

Copy of memo is sent to Ld. counsel for applicant’s counsel by E-mail.

¶21

In the result, SA is allowed, however without costs. Impugned notice to take Possession dated 16.01.2023 is hereby set aside and possession is restored to mortgagor. Respondent institution is directed not to debit their SARFESI action expenses to the borrower’s loan account. Applicants are directed to furnish particulars of legal representative to respondent institution. Respondent institution will at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶22

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶23

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶24

A copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned as per extant

¶25

guidelines.

¶26

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 18^th day of July, 2023)

¶27

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Rajesh Balaguru Moorthy v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Balaguru Moorthy v. Hdfc Bank

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

Sankar Subramani versus The Authourised Officer Ms Idfc First Bank Limited

Sri Kailash Traders Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Balasubramanian

G Vijayakumar versus Axis Bank

Mrs Pooja lakshmi versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus M/S Sujatha Biotech