In this SARFAESI application, the applicant challenged a possession notice issued by the bank for recovery of loan dues. The Debts Recovery Tribunal examined the bank's procedural compliance under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and found no merit in the applicant's challenge.
The SARFAESI Application was dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
S.A.No.540 of 2022 03.01.2024
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 03rd day of January, 2024
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 540 of 2022
Mrs.S.Punitha W/o P.Sathish Kumar No.94, S-1 Flat, 2nd Floor, Paari Street V.G.P. Shanthi Nagar, Pallikaranai Chennai – 600 100
….Applicant
Vs
The Authorized Officer
Indian bank Guduvancheri Branch No.22/1, G.S.T Road Guduvancherry Chengalpattu District
….Respondent
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s R.Mariappan Counsel for respondent : M/s C.Ramaiah
ORDER
respondent bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.49,37,276/-.
Rs.27,63,000 on 13.08.2019 and Home Loan plus for a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs on 10.09.2019 from respondent bank by mortgaging the schedule mentioned property, and was regular in repayment of installments. Applicant’s husband stood as guarantor for
2
S.A.No.540 of 2022 03.01.2024
the loans thus availed. However, due to pandemic covid-19 and ill health of applicant’s husband, who suffered heart attack and was in continuous treatment, applicant could not generate enough revenue to cause repayments towards the loan account, thus resulting in default and consequent initiation of recovery measures by respondent bank. It is the case of applicant that she had made various payments towards both the loan accounts from 15.09.2021 to 07.11.2022 as detailed in Pg No.3 of the SA paper book. When applicant was making efforts to regularize the loan account by remitting defaulted installments, respondent bank official had affixed the impugned Possession Notice dated 10.11.2022 in the secured asset, without serving the same on the applicant herein. Thus submitting, Ld.Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.
3
S.A.No.540 of 2022 03.01.2024
respondent bank and promised to settle the dues within a reasonable time period. However, as applicant did not come forward to repay their dues and only made false promises, respondent bank had issued the subject impugned possession notice dated 10.11.2022 which was duly served, affixed in the conspicuous place of the secured asset and published in two leading newspapers (New Indian Express and Dinamani) on 16.11.2022, as warranted under law. Thus submitting, Ld.Counsel prayed for appropriate orders.
(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed by me through e-drt, on this the 03rd day of January, 2024)
Sd/-
(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned possession notice dated 10.11.2022 issued by the bank was legally valid and procedurally compliant.
Whether the applicant could establish any tenable infirmities in the recovery process adopted by the respondent bank.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. P. Punitha
The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank Guduvancheri Branch
Ganapathi K.R.K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
