Dismissed

Anwar T M v. Punjab National Bank

DRT4 Nov 2024SA/549/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal dismissed an application challenging NPA classification and possession orders. It held the applicant failed to prove submission of an OTS proposal and could not raise illegal classification arguments without prior notice objection.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; no costs awarded.

What the court decided

Anwar T M versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 04^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

S.A No. 549 of 2024

¶6

Between

¶7

Anwar T.M., S/o. Marakar Kunju T.P., Thekkekudi House, Vallom, Rayonpuram P.O., Perumbavoor -683 543.

¶8

--- Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

Punjab National Bank, 1^st Floor, PNB House, No.40/1461, Market Road, Ernakulam -682 011, Represented by its Authorized Officer.

¶11

--- Defendant

¶12

This Securitization Application coming on 08.10.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Moly E.V., Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. Rajeevu L.G., Advocate appearing for the defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties and upon perusing the material on records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Securitisation Application was filed on 31.07.2024 seeking to declare that the classification of the loan account as NPA is illegal

¶15

SA No.549 of 2024

¶16

and the consequential proceedings issued vide Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A5 order and to set aside the same and award cost and compensation to the applicant.

¶17

M/s. Flora Boards is the partnership firm in which the applicant and his wife Smt. Amina are the partners. The availment of overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/- from the defendant bank upon creation of security interest in respect of the applicant’s property having an extent of 14.15 Ares along with building therein situated in Re. Sy. Nos.59/2, 59/3, 75 of Chelamattom Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam District and default in repayment of the outstanding loan due is admitted by the applicant.

¶18

Hence the loan account of the applicant and co-borrower came to be classified as Non-performing Asset and demand notice dated 01.07.2021 Annexure-A1 was issued to the applicant and his wife calling upon them to repay the outstanding loan due within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the demand notice. The applicant and his wife neither sent any objection/representation to the demand notice nor did they clear off their liability due to the defendant bank.

¶19

According to the defendant bank, symbolic possession of the secured asset was taken on 30.11.2021 and the secured asset was put for sale on two occasions, i.e., on 13.07.2022 and 24.02.2023. But for want of bidders, sale did not fructify.

¶20

The defendant bank approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court Ernakulam and filed application and affidavit, Annexure-A6 under Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Order Annexure – A5 came to be passed in MC No.598/2022 appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset.

¶21

The applicant filed W.P. (C) No.20414/2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala challenging the issuance of sale notice dated 08.06.2022. Annexure-A2 judgment came to be passed permitting the applicant to pay the entire outstanding amount in 15 equated monthly installments. Admittedly, the above direction was not complied with by the applicant. According to the applicant, he repaid only an amount of Rs.22,64,000/-. The applicant again filed another W.P. (C) No.42043/2023 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala seeking issuance of direction to the defendant bank to consider his representation for OTS. Annexure-A3 judgment came to be passed

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

SA No.549 of 2024

¶24

directing the applicant to remit an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on or before 31.12.2023 and a further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- on or before 20.01.2024 and to submit an OTS proposal.

¶25

It is the contention of the applicant that, he complied with the above direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and submitted the proposal for OTS and Annexure-A4 is the representation given by him to the defendant bank. But the rival contention of the defendant bank is that, though a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was remitted, no OTS proposal was submitted by the applicant. Annexure-A4 is said to have been sent by the applicant for OTS proposal to the Authorized Officer of the defendant bank. When non submission of OTS proposal is specifically pleaded in the written statement of the defendant bank, it is the bounden duty of the applicant to produce proof of submission of the OTS proposal. But the applicant has not produced such proof along with the S.A. Therefore, the above contention of the applicant with regard to submission of Annexure-A4 OTS proposal cannot be accepted as correct.

¶26

The applicant has averred in the SA that classification of the loan account is illegal. He has not specifically averred as to how the classification of his loan account is illegal. Further the applicant having failed to raise the above said by sending objection/ representation to the demand notice Annexure-A1 is not entitled to raise the issue now. The applicant has not averred in the SA as to whether the details contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in Annexure-A6 affidavit were not furnished and that Annexure-A5 order suffers from any infirmity.

¶27

In Annexure-A6 affidavit, all the necessary details contemplated under Clause (i) to (ix) to the proviso of Section 14 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 were furnished. A perusal of Annexure-A5 order in MC 598/2022 shows that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (MPs/MLAs) Ernakulam after having perused the contents of the affidavit and the documents filed in support of the affidavit and after having satisfied over, passed order appointing Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset. Therefore, Annexure-A5 order cannot be considered as an illegal order and as such it is not liable to be set aside.

¶28

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the applicant is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in this SA.

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

SA No.549 of 2024

¶31

In the result, S.A No.549 of 2024 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶32

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4^th day of November, 2024.

¶33

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

Mj/

Page 4 of 5

SA No.549 of 2024

List of documents filed by the Applicant along with the S.A.

¶38

Sl. No.	Date	Particulars
1.	01.07.2021	True copy of the demand notice issued by the defendant bank	Annexure-A1
2.	04.11.2022	True copy of the judgment in W.P. (C) No.20414/2022.	Annexure-A2
3.	14.12.2023	True copy of the judgment in W.P. (C) No.42043/2023.	Annexure-A3
4.	11.12.2023	True copy of the representation submitted by the applicant.	Annexure-A4
5.	24.08.2022	True copy of the certified copy of the order in MCNo.598/2022.	Annexure-A5
6.	---	True copy of the certified copy of the application along with affidavit (MC No.598/2022) received from the file of CJM Ernakulam.	Annexure-A6

¶39

List of documents filed by the defendant along with the written statement

¶40

Sl.	Date	Particulars
No.
1.	---	True copy of the last valuation report obtained by the defendant pertaining to the secured asset.	Annexure-B1
2.	---	True copy of the account statement pertaining to theloanaccount.	Annexure-B2

¶41

(Su. WILLYAHM) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

Mj/

¶43

Page 5 of 5

Anwar T M v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Anwar T M v. Punjab National Bank

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

Sh. Baba Bhagwant Bhajan Singh versus Recovery Officer-Ii Debt Recovery Tribunal -I

Bharat Electronics versus Indian Overseas Bank

Moideen Kalathingathodi versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Axis Bank versus Ranjit Singh

Ms Sr Motors versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Shalimar Group and Others versus Uco Bank