Dismissed

Jai Industries v. State Bank of India

DRT26 Apr 2024SA/409/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application challenging a possession notice. The bank demonstrated legal compliance, and the applicants failed to show procedural infirmities or raise tenable objections, leading to disposal without costs.

What did the court decide?

SARFAESI application dismissed without costs; applicant directed to settle with bank by 30.05.2024 or face further proceedings.

Jai Industries versus State Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

SA No. 409 of 2023

26.04.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 26^th day of April, 2024

¶6

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

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 409 of 2023

¶8

1. M/s. Jai Industries,
Rep by its partners,
Shri. Durai Shivalingam,
Smt. Anitha Durai,
Plot No. 117, woman’s Industrial Park,
Thirumullaivoiyal,
Chennai – 600 062.
2. Shri Durai Shivalingam,
No. 27, 6^thStreet, Rajiv Nagar,
Pudur, Ambattur,
Chennai – 600 053.
3. Smt. Anitha Durai,
No. 27, 6^thStreet, Rajiv Nagar,
Pudur, Ambattur,
Chennai – 600 053.	…Applicants
-Vs-
The Authorized Officer,
State Bank of India,
SME Branch, Ambattur,
No. 86, A&B, ii Main Road,
Ambattur Industrial Estate,
Chennai – 600 058.	…Defendant

¶9

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. U.	Karunakaran
Counsel for Respondent : M/s. K.	Chandrasekaran

SA No. 409 of 2023

26.04.2024

ORDER

This SA is filed by applicants challenging the Possession notice dated 07.06.2023 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,07,47,582/-.

¶16

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶17

It is the case of applicants that the amount claimed in the impugned possession notice is not the actual account due and payable and that a sum of more than 70,00,000/- which has been remitted to the credit of loan account was not adjusted while making the demanded account in the impugned possession notice. Not withstanding the same, it is the case of applicants that they had remitted a further sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- subsequent to approaching this tribunal which also needs to be reconciled with outstanding due.

¶18

Ld. Counsel for applicant fairly conceded that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned possession notice dated 07.06.2023, but however prayed for some more time to conclude their negotiations with respondent bank. Submitting so, Ld. Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.

¶19

Whereas, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions, after serving copies on the other side. Ld. Counsel submits that respondent bank has followed the procedure as warranted under law and that there are no infirmities. It is also submitted that despite approaching this tribunal applicants continued their default and neither regularised their loan account nor had come forward for one time settlement which is acceptable to the bank since the amounts offered are very low. Submitting so, Ld. Counsel also prayed for appropriate orders, as nothing

¶20

survives in the present challenge.

SA No. 409 of 2023

26.04.2024

Both parties concede that although there is no stay in the present matter respondent bank did not proceed further by taking further course of action under SARFAESI, in view of false promises by applicants for a negotiated settlement. Whereas, Ld. Counsel for applicants submitted that they had made proposals which could be complied upon and that they did not make any false promises.

¶25

In the circumstances, as respondent financial institution has demonstrated its actions which are found to be in accordance to law, in terms of their counter and typed set of documents and further as applicants could not raise any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted while issuing impugned possession notice, there are no merits in the present SA, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly, SA stands dismissed, however without costs.

¶27

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

¶28

Applicant may approach respondent bank and settle the matter by or before 30.05.2024 failing which respondent bank will be entitled to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶29

With the above directions SA stands disposed.

¶30

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 26^th day of April, 2024)

¶31

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

Jai Industries v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Industries v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I Robinson Britto versus Indusind Bank Limited

Mr S Ramasamy and Mrs R Padma versus Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

Vimal Traders versus City Union Bank Limited

G Parthiban and Subathra versus Axis Bank

S Muruguan versus Indian Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Thangakumar C