Dismissed

sadhanandham v. National Trust Housing Finance Limited

DRT8 Apr 2024SA/430/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a SARFAESI application filed by an NHBFI challenging recovery measures initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The dismissal was based on the applicant's default, non-prosecution, and failure to report compliance or settlement efforts.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs; all interim orders vacated; all other IAs closed.

sadhanandham versus National Trust Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No. 430 of 2022

08.04.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2024

¶6

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

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 430 of 2022

¶8

Mr. R. Sadhanandham, S/o C. Rajabhathar, Door No. 29/12, Fetoz Sahib Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014.

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer M/s. National Trust Housing Finance Limited, Having Registered No. 7, 3^rd Floor, Citi Towers, 3^rd Cross Street, Kasturibhai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. …Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G. Vijayakumar Counsel for Respondent : M/s. V. Balasubramani

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This is an SA filed by applicant challenging the measures initiated by respondent

¶16

bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. Chief Metropolitan

¶17

Magistrate, Egmore in Crl. M.P. No. 18452 of 2022 dated 06.10.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 18,03,040/- along with S.I.A Nos. 1250/22 and 1251/22 for urgent hearing and for stay respectively.

¶18

Although interim order is contemplated as applicant had deposited 2 Lakhs by way of demand draft and under took to pay a similar sum within a further period of 3 weeks, the same was not reported and therefore IA 1250 / IA 1251 OF 2022 came to be dismissed with costs of Rs. 2000/- payable to DRT and DRAT Bar Association. However, no compliance memo has been reported by applicant and

SA No. 430 of 2022

08.04.2024

there was no representation on behalf of applicant ever since 06.02.2023 after submitting that it is the endeavour of applicant to negotiate with respondent bank and enter into any amicable settlement. No such settlement has been reported nor applicant seems to have caused any payment to the credit of his loan account subsequent to the same as nothing was brought to the notice of this tribunal.

¶23

Whereas, respondent institution has filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing their actions, copies of which are duly served on the other side. Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that respondent institution has followed all the procedure as warranted under law and that applicant had never approached them for any settlement and in fact has not been representing the present matter from the last more than 10 adjournments. Ld. Counsel submits that respondent bank has also filed their written arguments evidencing their actions and submits that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent institution, which are since demonstrated at the bench and hence found to be in accordance to law.

¶24

The present SA is liable to be dismissed not only for default and non-prosecution but also owing to the fact that respondent institution has established its procedure as warranted under law and that applicant could not make out any tenable infirmities thereupon.

¶25

In the result, as there are no merits in the present SA, the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

Accordingly SA stands dismissed, however without costs.

SA No. 430 of 2022

08.04.2024

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

¶31

With the above directions SA stands disposed.

¶32

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

¶33

guidelines.

¶34

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 8^th day of April, 2024)

¶35

Sd/(GANAPATHI K.R.K)

¶36

PRESIDING OFFICER

sadhanandham v. National Trust Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

sadhanandham v. National Trust Housing Finance 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

V K Vijayasarathy versus Home First Finance Company India Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus a S Annamalai Chettiar and Company

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Michel Thomas

Mrs Porselvi S Wife of Late Sakthivel and Mrs Karpagam S Wife of Seeyalan versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

D Kalaimathi versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)

A Aslam Sayed versus M s Bajaj Housing Finance Limited