Dismissed

M S Digital Solution v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRT4 Mar 2024SA/466/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a SARFAESI application challenging a possession notice. The court rejected the borrowers' contention that multiple demand notices without withdrawal rendered the procedure invalid, holding no infirmities were established to warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

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

M S Digital Solution versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No. 466 of 2023

04.03.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 466 of 2023

¶9

M/s. Digital Solution, Rep by its Proprietor, Mr. D. Karthish, S/o. Durairaj, 4^th Floor, Azees Centre, No. 623, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 006

¶10

D. Karthish, S/o. Durairaj, Flat No. A -1, Poes Pride, A Block, 1 – Floor, 103 -1 (50 -1) Poes Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. 3. Mrs. Ratnaraj Vanila Roslin, W/o Mr. D. Karthish, Flat No. A – 1, Poes Pride, A Block, 1 – Floor, 103 – 1 (50 – 1) Poes Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. …Applicants -VsThe Authorized Officer, Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank, Chennai Mount Road Branch, 738, Anna Salai, Ground Floor Khivraj Mansion, Chennai – 600 002. …Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. C.K.M. Appaji Counsel for Respondent : M/s. N. Somasundar

SA No. 466 of 2023

04.03.2024

ORDER

SA challenging possession Notice of the respondent dated 11.07.2023 for a recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,57,02,456.60/-. Original Possession Notice filed.

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶19

It is the case of applicants that they were issued twice demand notices dated 10.03.2023 and once again two more notices dated 20.04.2023, without withdrawing the earlier demand notice. Applicant invoking the provisions of Section 13(3)(A) had raised objections on 14.06.2023 and 15.06.2023. However it is the case of applicant that respondent bank has not given any reply to their objections thus violating the provisions of the act. It is submitted that respondent bank has replied on 28.06.2023 only for the objection raised on 15.06.2023 and not for the objection of 14.06.2023. Ld. Counsel for applicant submits that respondent bank is not entitled to issue two demand notices without withdrawing one of them and since it is not mentioned any were in the later demand notice that the earlier notice stood withdrawn, the actions of the respondent bank in proceeding further is without the mandate of the act. It is also contended that the possession notice which is impugned in the present SA the demand notice of 20.04.2023 is only mentioned. It is submitted that originally applicant availed facilities from respondent bank and later moved to Canara Bank, but came back to the present respondent on their request. That applicant had complied initially the first limb of interim condition but could not comply the second condition.

¶20

Whereas respondent bank had put up appearance and filed their counter and typed set of documents, evidencing their actions. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submits that respondent bank has followed the procedure as warranted under law and that the contention of applicant that there were two demand notices and therefore the SARFAESI actions are null and void, are not tenable under law. Ld. Counsel submitted that, although a single notice for all the facilities has been issued on 10.03.2023 which has been duly served on the borrowers, respondent bank has thought it fit to distinguish the loans separately and issued notices accordingly. It is for this reason that two notices dated 20.04.2023 are issued for the two facilities independently even though the property mortgaged is the same. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for

SA No. 466 of 2023

04.03.2024

respondent bank that issuance of second demand notice has only enlarged time for applicants to discharge their debt and that there is no other impediment to the applicants herein. The same date of demand notice dated 20.04.2023 is only detailed and mentioned in the impugned possession notice dated 11.07.2023. Applicants have only been making wrongful allegations against the respondent bank but have not regularized their loan account with the respondent bank. Ld. Counsel demonstrated the actions of the respondent bank which could not be disputed by the Ld. Counsel for applicants.

¶25

From the foregone submissions, it is evident that respondent bank has followed the procedure as warranted under law and that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank while issuing the impugned possession notice dated 11.07.2023. As applicants could not make out any tenable infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent bank, there are no merits in the present SA and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

1. Accordingly SA stands dismissed however without costs.

¶27

1. Interim order if any stands vacated all other IAs stand closed.

¶28

1. With the above directions SA stands disposed.

¶29

(Dictated to stenographer,Saranya.M, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 4^th day of march, 2024)

¶30

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

M S Digital Solution v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Digital Solution v. Tamilnad Mercantile 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Celebrity Exports

Ramesh Prabhu versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Sivabalan T versus Icici Bank Limited

S Nanda Kumar versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Rejina Begam versus Hdb Financial Services

Mohideen Abdul Khader versus Vistaar Financial Services P Ltd.