Allowed

Anjalatchi v. Punjab National Bank

DRT18 Mar 2024SA/382/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal quashed a SARFAESI sale notice issued by Punjab National Bank because it failed to strictly follow statutory procedures regarding service of notices and publication. The sale was declared infructuous, possession restored, and initiation of fresh action allowed.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI action set aside; sale notice declared infructuous; possession restored to mortgagor; bank directed not to debit expenses.

Anjalatchi versus Punjab National Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

SA No. 382 of 2023

18.03.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2024

¶6

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

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 382 of 2023

¶8

Mrs. D. Anjalatchi, W/o.R. Dharmaraj, Old No. 11, V.O.C. Street, new No. 37, Kamban Street, Dr. Radhakrishna Nagar, Ariyankuppam Village, Pondicherry – 605 007.

¶9

...Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Sastra Centre, Circle Office Trichy, PNB House, Trichy – Tanjore Road, Kaliasapuram, TRichy – 620 014. ...Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.K.M. Suresh Counsel for Respondent : M/s. R. Jagadeesan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed by applicant challenging Sale notice dated 17.06.2023 and

¶16

fixing the sale on 27.07.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 38,12,461,50/-.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for both the parties.

SA No. 382 of 2023

18.03.2024

3 It is the case of applicants that they had availed loan facilities from the respondent bank and created mortgage over the schedule mentioned property. Owing to income fluctuations, they fell in arrears of their repayment schedule. Ld. Counsel for applicant submits that respondent bank has initiated SARFAESI action and issued demand notice which was not served in a manner known to law. It is submitted that, from the counter averments, it is made clear that respondent had only published demand notice but has not caused affixture of the same on the mortgage property. Ld. Counsel submits that respondent bank has served possession notice at the same address which was duly acknowledged by the applicant herein. It is also submitted that paper publication of possession notice is caused on the 8^th day, which is beyond the statutory period of 7 days for causing the same. Ld. Counsel submits that in view of compliance of the first condition no sale has taken place on the scheduled date and therefore the sale notice has become infructuous. It is also submitted that applicants could not comply with the second limb of the conditional order.

¶22

Whereas Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submits that applicants have been defaulters ever since 2017 and that the demand notice was issued to the same address where the possession notice was issued but the same is returned, unserved with the endorsement no such addressee, which shows that applicant had willfully avoided the receipt of notices from the bank while willfully knowing their default. Ld. Counsel further submits that the photographs evidencing affixture are available but is not clear and has been smudged and therefore could not furnish the same. However it is admitted that possession notice could not be published within 7 days but was published only on the 8^th day, basing on

SA No. 382 of 2023

18.03.2024

which actions, present sale notice came to be issued. Ld. Counsel submits that all the formalities required to be followed while issuing the impugned sale notice are duly followed and also submits that there was no challenge to the possession notice by the borrower. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank admits that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date and thus the impugned sale notice has become infructuous.

¶27

From the foregone submissions on behalf of both the parties, it is evident that respondent bank has not followed the procedure either at the time of the issuance of the demand notice nor subsequently at the stage of issuance of possession notice, as can be evidenced from the typed set of documents furnished into this tribunal, after serving copy on the other side. It is further admitted by both the parties that applicant has made the initial payment of the first condition and failed to pay the second condition and continued his default. It is also admitted that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date and thus the impugned sale notice has become infructuous.

¶28

In the result, as respondent bank could not establish its vires in accordance to law while prosecuting its SARFAESI action against the defaulting borrowers, their SARFAESI actions are liable to be set aside and are hereby accordingly set aside.

¶29

Consequently, SA stands allowed. Respondent bank is directed not to debit its Sarfaesi action expenses to the borrowers loan account. Possession is restored to mortgager.

SA No. 382 of 2023

18.03.2024

Liberty be with respondent bank to initiate action afresh, if the default of the

¶34

borrower continues.

¶35

Interim order if any stands vacated. All other IAs stand closed.

¶36

With the above directions SA stands disposed.

¶37

(Dictated to Stenographer ,Saranya.M, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 18^th day of March, 2024)

¶38

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

Anjalatchi v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjalatchi v. Punjab National 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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi

The Federal Bank Limited versus Sri. Johney @ John Chacko

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Venkappa Bhimappa Lamani (Since deceased by his legal Representatives)

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Om Anand Enterprises

Atma Ram versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Narinder Singh versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited