Allowed

Sivabalan T v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT28 Feb 2024SA/351/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a SARFAESI application challenging a possession notice issued by the respondent bank. The court found the notice invalid due to non-compliance with Section 13(2) demand notice requirements and lack of proper service, setting aside the notice and restoring possession to the mortgagor.

What did the court decide?

Possession notice dated 20.04.2023 set aside; possession restored to mortgagor; bank directed not to debit notice expenses.

Sivabalan T versus Icici Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

SA 351 of 2023

28.02.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.351 of 2023

¶9

Mr. Sivabalan. T No.42, Ottampalayam Road, Pappanchavady, Pondicherry, Pondicherry- 605 110. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs -

¶11

The Authorized Officer, M/s. ICICI Bank Limited, Arihant Insight, Plot No.24, Block No.1, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai- 600 058. .…Responden t

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : M/s. B. Raja

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 20.04.2023 issued by

¶15

respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,47,084/-

¶16

Counsel for applicant is present. Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and perused records.

¶17

It is the case of applicant that he availed loan against property to the tune of Rs.24,90,750/- during the year 2019 from respondent bank, which is repayable in 164 EMIs of Rs.25,412/- per month and was regular in repayment of installments without any delay or default till January, 2021. However, owing to Pandemic Covid 19 situation,

SA 351 of 2023

28.02.2024

applicant suffered loss of income and hence could not repay the monthly installments. It further submitted that applicant approached respondent bank and offered to settle the loan account under OTS within a reasonable time period. Respondent bank although accepted the same orally, did not consider granting of time and all of a sudden had issued impugned possession notice, without issuing Demand Notice under Section 13(2) as mandated under the Act. It is further contended that the impugned Possession Notice was not affixed and published in two newspapers and respondent bank has not followed the provisions of SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶22

No representation on behalf of respondent bank even during second round of call work despite acknowledging notice from this Tribunal on 01.08.2023 (by post) and 26.02.2024 (E-mail). As respondent bank failed to enter appearance and establish their action under the Act by filing counter and typed set of documents, the contentions raised by applicant remains unrebutted, consequently this SA is liable to be allowed.

¶23

In the result, SA stands allowed. Possession Notice dated 20.04.2023 is hereby set aside and possession is restored to mortgagor. Respondent bank is directed not to debit subject impugned Possession Notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account for their default of non-appearance, despite acknowledging notices twice from this Tribunal. However, respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶24

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

SA 351 of 2023

28.02.2024

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶29

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

¶30

guidelines.

¶31

(Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28^th day of February, 2024)

¶32

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

Sivabalan T v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivabalan T v. Icici Bank Limited

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

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Ms Deepam Dtp

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Ms Smart Colour Pro

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Ms Greenway Traders

Bank of Baroda versus Padma Shekar

Santhosh Abraham versus Religare Finvest Limited

Idbi Bank versus M/s. Appu Hotels Limited