Dismissed

Goda Venkataraman v. Deustche Bank

DRT3 Apr 2024SA/217/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. The applicant failed to establish any procedural infirmity, despite claims of inability to repay due to business fluctuations, and was given time to negotiate a settlement.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed without costs. Applicant permitted to approach bank for regularization or OTS by 15.05.2024.

Goda Venkataraman versus Deustche Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No. 217 of 2023

03.04.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 217 of 2023

¶8

Mr. Goda Venkatraman, S/o. G. Kothandaraman, No. 3/15, Brahmin Street, Karambakkam, Porur, Thiruvallur, Chennai 600 116. …Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorised Officer, Deutsche Bank, No. 4-4A, Western Tower, Sunny Side, Shafi Mohammed Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai- 600 006. …Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. N. Baskaran Counsel for Respondent : M/s. Sai Krishnan Associates.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the possession notice dated 01.03.2023 issued by

¶15

respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,66,53,849.28p.

¶16

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for both the sides.

¶17

It is the case of applicant that, owing to, business fluctuations resulting in income

¶18

fluctuations, they could not discharge their debt in terms of their repayment

¶19

schedule, consequent upon which their account came to be declared as NPA. Respondent bank has initiated Sarfaesi actions thus leading to present challenge

¶20

impugning the possession notice dated 01.03.2023.

SA No. 217 of 2023

03.04.2024

It is the case of the applicant that, although, it is their endeavour to discharge the overdue amounts and seek regularization of their loan account with the respondent bank, the same could not be accomplished for want of funds and therefore their default continued. Ld. Counsel for applicant submits that applicants are ready and willing to negotiate with respondent bank for an amicable settlement and prayed for some more time to make remittances into their loan account.

¶25

Whereas, Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent bank, has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions while issuing the impugned possession notice, copies of which are duly served on the other side. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submits that respondent bank has followed the procedure as warranted under law and that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted while issuing possession notice and prayed for appropriate orders.

¶26

In the circumstances as applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing impugned possession notice dated 01.03.2023, there are no merits in the present SA and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

Accordingly, SA stands dismissed, however without costs.

¶28

Interim order if any stands vacated. All other IA’s stand closed.

¶29

In terms of submission of Ld. Counsel for applicant at the bench, applicant is permitted to approach respondent bank either for regularization or for OTS of their loan account, in any case by or before 15.05.2024, failing which respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law.

SA No. 217 of 2023

03.04.2024

With the above directions SA stands disposed.

¶34

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

¶35

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 3^rd day of April, 2024).

¶36

Sd/(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶37

PRESIDING OFFICER

Goda Venkataraman v. Deustche Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goda Venkataraman v. Deustche 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

Mr Geridharan a B versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

N Kumaravel versus the Authourised Office Manappuram Home Finance Ltd.

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Rr Constrcution

Cgm Impex versus Indian Bank

S Srinivasulu versus Icici Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus a S Annamalai Chettiar and Company