Dismissed

Ameena Salim v. Canara Bank

DRT16 Jan 2024APPEAL/10/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal No. 10 of 2023 was dismissed. The tribunal upheld the Registrar's refusal to register a Special Appeal filed by an appellant challenging a sale notice. The appellant, being a guarantor for the borrower's credit facility as per affidavit and guarantee letters, was held liable to pay court fee under Rule 13(2)(d) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The tribunal found no merits

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal filed by the appellant was not entertained and the appeal was dismissed.

Ameena Salim versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 16^th DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Appeal No. 10 of 2023

¶6

¶7

[Unregistered S.A (Diary No.1547/2023) – e-filing No.15044/2023]

¶8

Between

¶9

Ameena Salim, W/o. late P.A. Salim, Having residential address at 43/2291, Pediyakkal House, Peediyakkal Road, Near Thottathumpadi Juma Masjid, Kochi – 682 018.

¶10

--- Appellant

¶11

And

¶12

Authorised Officer,

¶13

Canara Bank, Kanjikode SME Branch, Palakkad District, State of Kerala -678 321.

¶14

Canara Bank, Kanjikode SME Branch, Palakkad District, State of Kerala -678 321

¶15

Represented by Senior Manager.

¶16

--- Defendants

¶17

Appeal No.10 of 2023

¶18

This Appeal coming on 11.01.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Jolly, Advocate represented the Counsel on record for the appellant and upon hearing arguments of the representing Counsel for the appellant and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 24.11.2023 of the Registrar of this Tribunal in Unregistered S.A (Diary No.1547/2023) – e-filing No.15044/2023 declining to register the S.A filed by the appellant.

¶21

The appellant contended that one Savute Textiles offered the appellant a good rate of return if she submitted the title deeds of her property to it and that it would make her son as Director of the company and that believing the above said words, the appellant handed over her property documents to the said company and that she signed a number of papers believing it as if a good investment records and that she received the possession notice, Annexure-A1 from the 1^st respondent and that the 2^nd respondent filed Original Application against the appellant for recovery of the outstanding loan due and that the appellant has not signed any guarantee documents and that this SA is filed challenging Annexure-A6 sale notice and that since the appellant is not a guarantor and is a third party, the appellant has paid the fee as per Rule 13(2)(d) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and that therefore the appeal may be allowed.

¶22

The Registrar of this Tribunal declined to register the S.A (Diary No.1547/2023) – e-filing No.15044/2023 on the ground that in Annexure-A1 demand notice and possession notice and Annexure-A6 sale notice produced along with the S.A, the appellant is cited as guarantor and that therefore the appellant has to pay the fee applicable to the borrower.

¶23

It is seen from the perusal of Annexure-A1, copies of demand notice and the possession notice, the appellant herein is described as guarantor. It is clearly stated in the demand notice that the appellant stood as guarantor for the credit facility availed by M/s. Savute Textiles Pvt. Ltd. the borrower. The appellant has produced copy of indemnity-cum-affidavit, Annexure-A5. The appellant has also produced copies of guarantee letters dated 01.06.2015 and 19.07.2017, Annexure-A8 and A9, which are said to have been filed by the 2^nd respondent herein in OA No.309/2021 filed before this Tribunal as Annexure-A5 along with the S.A. Annexure-A5 is said to

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

Appeal No.10 of 2023

¶26

have been executed by the appellant in favour of the 1^st respondent bank for availment of loan.

¶27

It is not the contention of the appellant that she sent any objection/representation to the aforesaid demand notice informing the 1^st respondent herein that she never signed any guarantee documents and that she never stood as guarantor for the above said Savute Textiles Pvt Ltd. The appellant did not file the SA challenging Annexure-A1 possession notice contending that she is not the guarantor for the credit facilities availed by the aforesaid Textile Company. Annexure-A8 and A9 shows that these are the guarantee agreements executed by M/s.Savute Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant in favour of the 2^nd respondent bank for the availment of credit facilities. Thus it is clearly evident from the perusal of the aforesaid documents that the appellant stood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by the aforesaid Textile Company from the 2^nd respondent bank. Since the aforesaid documents prima facie reveals the fact that the appellant is the guarantor, she is liable to pay the court fee as per Rule 13(2)(d) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 as rightly held by the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶28

Therefore, this Tribunal finds that there are no valid reasons or merits to entertain this appeal. In the result, Appeal No.10/2023 stands dismissed.

¶29

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16^th day of January 2024.

¶30

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶31

Mj/

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Ameena Salim v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameena Salim 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

Ashrafudheen K versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Jai Bihar Enterprises and others

Hdfc Bank versus Amandeep Singh Yadav

M S Firozabad Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Karanjit Singh versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ajit Ved Parkash