Dismissed

Vadivel P v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

DRT19 Jan 2024SA/216/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal Chennai dismissed the SARFAESI application challenging the respondent's possession notice dated 24.01.2023. The applicant conceded there were no procedural infirmities. The application was dismissed without costs and pending interim orders vacated.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated.

Vadivel P versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No. 216 of 2023

19.01.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 216 of 2023

¶9

Mr. Vadivel P. S/o. Pandurangan No. 17B, VOC Nagar, Old Bus Stand, Hosur – 635 109. ….Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Shriram Finance Limited, (Formerly Shriram City Union Finance Limited) TN 01 – Legal Department, 1^st Floor, Sorrento Building, No.6, L.B.Road, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Arvind Rajagopal Counsel for Respondent : M/s. G. Sumathi

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 24.01.2023 issued by respondent institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,32,654/-.

¶16

Heard Ld. Counsels appearing for respective parties. Ld. Counsel for respondent

¶17

bank had filed documents evidencing registration of mortgage with CERSAI after serving copy of the same on the other side.

¶18

Ld. Counsel for applicant fairly conceded that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent institution while issuing the subject impugned possession notice and prayed for passing necessary orders.

SA No. 216 of 2023

19.01.2024

Ld. counsel for respondent institution submitted that respondent had followed the procedures as contemplated under the Act which is evidenced through the typed set of documents filed along with counter and prayed for passing necessary orders.

¶23

As applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure followed by respondent institution while issuing the subject impugned possession notice, this SA is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Accordingly, this SA is dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶25

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

¶26

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 19^th day of January, 2024)

¶27

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

Vadivel P v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadivel P v. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Ravanan versus Sundaram Home Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Maria Rufina Martina

Indian Overseas Bank versus M s Redsun Solar Power System

Mr Velmurugan R versus Hdfc Bank

Ashok R Patel versus Punjab National Bank

Shajahan versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited