Dismissed

Maya Devi v. Canara Bank

DRT18 Apr 2023SA/99/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna dismissed an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the bank's enforcement actions. The Tribunal found that the bank followed correct procedural steps involving registered post and newspaper publication, rejecting the applicant's claims of non-service and procedural irregularities.

What did the court decide?

The application with all pending pleas was dismissed along with costs.

Maya Devi versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

DRT,PATNA

¶3

SA 99 of 2022 [J]

¶4

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer: Shri KaushalendraYadav

¶6

SA- 99 of 2022

¶7

1. Maya Devi, Guarantor of M/s Shree Kailash Bajaj, Wife of Sri Satendra Singh, Residence of Sarimpur, Golamber, Main Raod, Buxar, Bihar - 802101.

¶8

. Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Regional Manager, Canara Bank, 2nd Floor, Maurya Tower, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna- 800001.

¶11

Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, 2nd Floor, Maurya Tower, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna- 800001.

¶12

Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Near NamakGola, Buxar,802 101.

¶13

--respondents

¶14

Present:

¶15

For the Applicant : Sh.RajNanadan Prasad,Advocate For the respondents Bank : Sh.Manoj Kumar, Advocate

¶16

Dated: 18.04.2023

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Present application u/s 17 of SARFAESIAct has been filed with a prayer to quash entire SARFAESIaction taken against the properties of applicant alongwith the possessionnotice.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that the financial assistance from the respondent bank was provide to the borrower. On default in repayment of the dues of the bank, was declared as NPA on 29.09.2021. Subsequently, the bank initiated SARFAESIAction secured assets and issued demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 01.10.2021 calling upon the applicant to make the payment of Rs.243.46 lakh. Further possession notice dated 11.01.2022 u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESIAct was issued. Against the said possessionnotice the applicant had"earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court of Patna by CWJC3684 of 2022 and said was disposed of vide order 01.04.2022. Further, the applicant aggrieved from the possession notice, this SAhas been filed by the applicant alongwith limitation petition.

¶20

On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Id. Counsel of applicant that the

~V7 }:J\ v,. ..yo

DRT,PATNA

SA 99 of 2022 [J]

¶25

applicant was suffering from Chest infection and was advised complete rest, the present application has been filed with the delay of 11 days as the applicant came to know about possession notice through publication in newspaper dated 18.01.2022.

¶26

On the point of merit it is alleged by the applicant that without intimation of declaration of account as NPA, the respondent bank sent demand notice dated 01.10.2021 issued u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESIAct, The possession notice dated 11.01.2022 issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESIAct was not served to the applicant. The bank failed to comply with the provision of the Act and failed to comply with Rule 8(1) and (2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The respondent bank had also failed to paste the possessionnotice on the conspicuous part of the building. The applicant was surprised to see publication of possession notice in the Hindi newspaper dated 18.1.2022. It is further submitted that on the same day the respondent bank forwarded the proposal of restructuring of account to the Regional Officer while on the other side, the possession notice has been published in newspaper on 18.01.2022. However, the said proposal was rejected by the bank and also debited a sum of Rs.18.50 lakhs from the fixed deposit without the consent of the applicant.

¶27

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of respondent bank submits that due to default in repayment, the account in question was declared as NPAon 29.09.2021 and issued demand notice dated 01.10.2021 u/s 13(2) of the act and sent to the applicant by registered post on 01.10.2021. The applicant neither deposited the dues of the bank nor submitted any representation/objection, hence, the respondent bank proceeded further and took possession of the property by issuing possession notice 11.01.2022 u/s 13(4) of the act. The possession notice was sent to the applicant through registered post on 13.01.2022 and also affixed on the secured asset. Further, the possession notice was published in two leading newspapers namely "Prabhat Khabar" and 'The Hindu" dated 16.01.2022.

¶28

The son of the present applicant Amit Kumar had filed a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court bearing CWJCno. 3684/2022. While disposing the said writ petition on 01.04.2022, Hon'ble High Court observed/directed to the applicant to show his bonafides by undertaking to deposit Rs.20 lakhs with the respondent bank within a period of two months from today, spread over an installment of RS.5 lakhs per two weeks. The applicant didn't comply with the order of Hon'ble High

~1 {:. ~\v....~

DRT,PATNA

SA 99 of 2022 [J]

¶33

Court as per undertaking therein.

¶34

I have heard Ld. Counselfor the parties and gone through the record.

¶35

It has been alleged that neither demand notice issued u/s 13 (2) nor possession notice issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESIAct has been served to the applicant. The respondent bank had also failed to paste the possessionnotice on the conspicuous part of the building.

¶36

On perusal of records it appearsthat the demand notice was sent to the applicants through registered post on 01.10.2021. The postal receipt is annexed with the Counter affidavit of the bank. Thereafter the bank issued possessionnotice dated 11.01.2022 and sent to the applicant through registered post on 13.01.2022. Copy of the postal receipt is annexed with the Counter Affidavit of the bank. Further, the possession notice was published in two newspapers namely Prabhat Khabar and The Hindu on 16.11.2022. The possessionnotice was affixed on the secured assets.Sincethe service of notice by registered post may be presumed at the usual time of delivery of registered post. In such circumstances there is no procedural infirmity on the part of respondent in SARFAESIaction.

¶37

In view of the above discussion,the application is devoid of merits and deserves rejection with costs.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The application under Section 17 of the SARFAESIAct filed by Maya Devi, with all pending lAs is dismissedwith cost.

¶40

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶41

Presiding Officer

¶42

Debts RecoveryTribunal, Patna

¶43

Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 18TH Dayof April, 2023.

¶44

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶45

Presiding Officer

¶46

Debts RecoveryTribunal, Patna

Maya Devi v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Devi v. Canara 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

Sujit Dattatray Yande Anr. versus Asrec (India) Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Rtam Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Om Sai Mini Rice Mill and Others

Canara Bank versus Saroj Kumar Thakur and others

Idbi Bank versus Sri Laxmi Kant Ojha and Ohters

Ms Kishan Agro Enterprises and Others versus Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)