Allowed

Am Premila a v. Premila

DRT29 Feb 2024SA/383/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants filed appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act challenging a possession notice. Tribunal ruled that while it cannot inquire into outstanding liability, the possession notice must be set aside due to admitted non-compliance of Rule 3(A) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules by the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The possession notice dated 14.11.2023 and measures leading to the same are set aside; respondent directed to restore possession and not recover costs.

Am Premila a versus Premila — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 29^th day of February, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SA No.383 of 2023

¶5

A.M. Premila W/o Mr. T. Kanniappan No.18-A-A/4, New No.45 G-3, Himalaya Homes, Ground Floor Azhagiri Nagar 3^rd Street Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 023

¶6

T. Kanniappan S/o T. Swathanthar No.18-A-A/4, New No.45 G-3, Himalaya Homes, Ground Floor Azhagiri Nagar 3^rd Street Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 023 …Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Authorised Officer ICICI Bank Ltd., 2^nd Floor, East Wing Plot No.24, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Ambattur Chennai – 600 058 …Respondent

¶9

Counsel for the Applicants : M/s K.A. Ramakrishnan Counsel for Respondent : …….

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

The applicant who admitted to have availed a home loan for Rs.11,82,000/- by creating Security Interest over the schedule properties is approaching this Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), as the

¶12

case be, with a prayer to set aside the possession notice dated 14.11.2023.

¶13

¶14

The measures are impugned contending that the remittances made by the applicants were not properly given credit to by the respondent. The applicant have no dispute as to the service of demand notice, but the applicant contends that the representation submitted by the applicant were not considered by the respondent and thereby there is non-compliance of Rule 3(A) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules.

¶15

It is also submitted that the entire liability had been wiped off by repayment and adjustment of the amount deposited with the Hon’ble DRAT. It is also stated the earlier measures taken by the respondent were set aside by the Tribunal in SA 280 of 2019 before DRT-III Chennai and the measures taken in 2011 also met with same fate as SA.271 of 2011 also stands allowed. It is also stated that the challenge as to the subsequent measures in 2012 was dismissed resulting in the applicant filing appeal before Hon’ble DRAT wherein an amount of Rs.6,25,000/was paid.

¶16

Despite service of there was no appearance for the respondent.

¶17

Heard the Ld counsel for the applicant and considered the case put forth by the applicant in reference to documents.

¶18

The applicant though contends that the entire liability is wiped off by them, this Tribunal in the present proceedings under Section 17 cannot venture into an enquiry as to the quantum of amount outstanding in the account. Hence this Tribunal is not inclined to accept the applicant’s contention in this regard.

¶19

¶20

In respect of the measures, it is the case of the applicant that there is noncompliance of Rule 3A which will invalidate the measures. Even though no evidence as to the sending of any representation is produced by the applicant, this Tribunal is of the view that, since the contention remains unrebutted, the same had to be considered as admitted. Admitted facts need not be proved and hence the measures leading to the impugned possession notice is to be set aside. Hence, the following order is passed: -

¶21

(i) SA No.383 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶22

(ii) The possession notice dated 14.7.2023 and measures leading to the same are set aside.

¶23

(iii) The respondent is directed to put the applicant back in possession if actual possession is take pursuant to the impugned measures.

¶24

(iv) The respondent is directed not to mulct the cost of the measures on the applicant, if any debit is already made in this regard necessary reversal had to be made forthwith.

¶25

(v) No orders as to be costs.

¶26

Issue copies in accordance with Rule 16 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993.

¶27

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 29^th day of February, 2024)

¶28

Sd/(T. RAJESH ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶29

Am Premila a v. Premila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Am Premila a v. Premila

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

Syed Faiyaz S a versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

State Bank of India, versus Thiru Arooran Sugars Limited

State Bank of India versus S. Aravind Kumar

M/s.City Union Bank Limited versus M/s.Sri Devi Arts

R S Sekar versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

South Indian Bank versus P Rathina Kumar