A SARFAESI Application seeking to set aside a Possession Notice and claiming procedural violations by the bank was dismissed as the applicant failed to substantiate his claims due to lack of documentary evidence and non-compliance with a conditional stay order.
SARFAESI Application dismissed with no costs; all pending internal applications disposed of.
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.
SA No.565/2023
Fair Order
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT MADURAI
DATED THIS 05th DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT: SEEMA SINHA
[PR. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER
SA No.565/2023
M.G. Pare, Partner, M/s. G.P.Constructions, 1, Gopalsamy Nagar, Pasumalai, Madurai – 625 004. --- Applicant
-Vs-
The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, SARB, No. 8, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Vinayaga Nagar Branch I Floor, Madurai – 625 020. --- Defendant
Appearance of Advocates: Mr. M. Arunachalam ---- Counsel for the Applicant Mr. P. Pethu Rajesh ---- Counsel for the Defendant Bank
This SARFAESI Application was heard in the presence of Counsels for the Applicant and the Defendant Bank and fixed for passing final order before me and upon hearing the arguments of the Counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:
O R D E R
1 . This application has been filed under Sec.17(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 by the Applicants praying that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to
Page 1 of 16
SA No.565/2023
pass an order to set aside the Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023 issued by the Defendant Bank u/s.13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002.
2 . The brief averments of the Application filed by the Applicant are as follows:-
The Applicant submitted that he has been doing Highway Contract and Railway Contract Work under the name and style of M/s. G.P. Constructions. It is a partnership firm. The Applicant submitted that Applicant, Applicant's wife P. Umamaheswari and one K. Murugesan are partners in it. In order to develop the business, on behalf of G.P. Constructions, the Applicant approached the Defendant for availing certain credit facilities. The Applicant, Applicant's wife and one K. Murugesan agreed to stand as Guarantors for the credit facilities to be sanctioned to G.P. Constructions. The secured assets more fully described in the description of properties belongs to Applicant and Applicant's wife. The Defendant Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lakhs only) towards Cash Credit Loan, Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) towards W.C.T.L., Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) towards F.I.T.L.II, Rs. 1,90,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Lakhs only) towards T.L., Rs. 49,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs only) towards GECL and another sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) towards F.I.T.L. I to M/s. G.P. Constructions on various dates. The Applicant was servicing the interest very promptly and regularly and so far, paid a sum of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crore only) approximately towards Loan Account.
The Applicant submitted that due to Labour Problem, price raise in raw material, heavy competition in the field and delayed payment from Government besides demonetization, introduction of GST and COVID-19 Pandemic, Applicant's Highway Contract work was affected and hence Applicant unable to pay the loan dues in time. The Applicant submitted that facts being so all of a sudden Applicant was shocked and surprised to receive a Demand Notice dated 30.06.2023 U/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, thereby calling upon the borrower and guarantors specified therein to pay
Page 2 of 16
SA No.565/2023
the entire amount specified in the said notice. The Applicant immediately rushed to the Defendant and sought an explanation with regard to the said Demand Notice but the Defendant was not in a position to explain as to why the said Demand Notice was issued to the Applicant. Further, the Bank did not consider the request of the Applicant to regularize the account.
Thereafter, the Defendant Bank issued a Possession Notice dated 12.09.2023 and has withdrawn the same for the reasons best known to them and issued present Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023 U/s.13(4) of SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that the Applicant is not liable to pay any expenses incurred by the Defendant for the 1st Possession Notice dated 12.09.2023.
The Applicant further submitted that the symbolic possession of the properties described in the schedule allegedly taken by the Defendant is illegal and blatant violation of the provisions under SARFAESI Act and Rules framed there under and the said action including the Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023 is liable to be set aside. The Defendant has not affixed the Possession Notice on the conspicuous part of the properties which is a mandatory provision of the Rules framed under SARFAESI Act and has failed to publish the said Possession Notice in two newspapers having wide circulation in the area where the properties are situated and it is a mandatory provision under SARFAESI Act and Rules framed there under. Since, the mode and procedure for taking Possession of the properties as prescribed in Rule 8(1) of the security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 has not been followed by the Defendant, the Possession Notice become untenable in law and unsustainable.
The Applicant submitted that the Applicant did not execute any M.O.D.T. for GECL and F.I.T.L. I loans in favour of the Defendant. But, Defendant has included the said loans in 13(2) and 13(4) notice which is blatant violation of SARFAESI Act and Rules. As per Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023, Defendant claimed a sum of Rs. 6,39,93,683/- (Rupees Six Crores Thirty Nine Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Three only) is due from Applicant as on 12.09.2023. Further, the SARFAESI
Page 3 of 16
SA No.565/2023
Action initiated by the Defendant u/s. 13(2) and 13(4) suffer from several severe irregularities and illegalities and is liable to be set aside for the reasons mentioned above. The Defendant has failed to observe the procedures while issuing notices under SARFAESI Act. The Defendant has acted in an arbitrary manner. Hence, this SARFAESI Application is preferred on the following among other grounds.
Main Grounds:-
Page 4 of 16
SA No.565/2023
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow this Application.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES
Item No. 1a
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, Sannasi Pathunanja in R.S. No. 18/1 in UDR Survey No. 18/11 out 75 cents Northern land to an extent of 37½ cents and at present 32 cents as on ground and out of 75 cents the southern 37¼ cents and as on ground it is only 37 cents in UDR S.No. 18/1B1 totally to an extent of 69 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site bearing plot no. 3 and plot no.2 (Eastern Part) measuring east west on the north 64½ feet and on the south 64½ feet and north south on the east 43 feet and on the west 39 feet and on the centre 40 feet, totally to an extent of 2623 sq.feet which is situated as within the following four boundaries:
| North | : | Vathiyar Land |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | Plot No. 4 |
| South | : | 20 feet width road |
| West | : | V.R. Narayanasamy settled Western portion of portion |
Nos. 2 & 1
Item No. 1b
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub-Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram, Sannasi Pathunanja in R.S. No. 18/1 in UDR Survey No. 18/11 out 75 cents the Northern land to an extent of 37½ cents and at present 32 cents as on ground and out of 75 cents the southern 38½ cents and as on ground it is only 37 cents in UDR S.No.18/1B1 totally to an extent of 69 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site bearing plot no. 1 (Western Part) measuring
Page 5 of 16
SA No.565/2023
east west on the north 72 feet and on the south 62 feet and north south on the east 39 feet and on the west 8½ + 26½ =35 feet and on the centre 27 feet, totally to an extent of 2488¼ sq.feet which is situated at within the following four boundaries:
| North | : Vathiyar Land |
|---|---|
| East | : Eastern portion of Plot No.2 belonging to N. Ramamoorthy |
| and Plot No. 3 | |
| South | : 20 feet width road |
| West | : P. Guhan properties and channel |
Item No: 2
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, then within the limit of Thirupparankundram municipality now Madurai Municipal Corporation in Patta No. 9 in R.S. No. 19/7 UDR R.S. No. 19/7 UDR R.S. No. 19/7b out of 16 cents, the Northern vacant site with house building measuring east west 75 feet and north south on the east 8½ feet and on the west 10 feet totally to an extent of 694 sq.feet, which is within the following four boundaries and measurement:
| North | : | Ramachandran land East |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | South Channel |
| South | : | 20 feet width east-west common road |
| West | : | G S T Road |
Item No: 3a
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, in S.No. 18/1 UDR S.No. 18/1A out of 3 acres 6 cents, the land to an extent 76½ cents and as on ground 72 cents which is converted into various house site and out of which the vacant house site building plot no. 13 measuring East West on the North 36 feet and on the South 36 feet and North South on the East 40 feet and on the West 40 feet
Page 6 of 16
SA No.565/2023
totally to an extent of 1440 sq.feet which is situated within the following four boundaries:
| North | : | 20 feet width East – West common road |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | Plot No. 12 |
| South | : | Site measuring in S. No. 18/B1 |
| West | : | Plot No. 14 |
Item No: 3b
In Madurai District, Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, S.No. 18/1 UDR S.No. 18/1A out of 3 acres 6 cents the land to an extent 76½ cents and as on ground 72 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site building plot no. 14 measuring East West on the North 36 feet and on the South 36 feet and North South on the East 40 feet and on the West 40 feet totally to an extent of 1440 sq.feet which is situated within the following four boundaries:
| North | : | 20 feet width East – West common road |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | Plot No. 13 |
| South | : | Site measuring in S. No. 18/1B1 |
| West | : | Plot No. 15 |
Item No: 3c
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, in S.No. 18/1 UDR S.No. 18/1A out of 3 acres 6 cents the land to an extent 76½ cents and as on ground 72 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site building plot no. 15 measuring East West on the North 36 feet and on the South 36 feet and North South on the East 40 feet and on the West 40 feet totally to an extent of 1440 sq.feet which is situated within the following four boundaries:
North : 20 feet width East – West common road East : Plot No. 14
Page 7 of 16
SA No.565/2023
South : Site measuring in S. No. 18/1B1 West : Plot No. 16
Item No: 3d
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, in S.No. 18/1 UDR S.No. 18/1A out of 3 acres 6 cents the land to an extent 76½ cents and as on ground 72 cents which is converted into various house sites and out of which the vacant house site building plot no. 16 measuring East West on the North 38½ feet and on the South 36 feet and North South on the East 40 feet and on the West 40 feet totally to an extent of 1490 sq.feet which is situated within the following four boundaries:
| North | : | 20 feet width East – West common road |
|---|---|---|
| East | : | Plot No. 15 |
| South | : | Properties belonging to Nagamudaliar Vahayarah |
| West | : | 20 feet width East-West common Road |
Item No: 4
In Madurai District, Madurai South Registration District, Thirupparankundram Sub Registration District, Madurai South Taluk, Thirupparankundram Village, bearing patta No. 790 comprised in R.S.No. 18/1B1 an extent of 37½ cents and in which Eastern portion and bearing patta No. 507 R.S. No. 18/1B2 an extent of 37½ cents clubbed and converted into plots in which plot no. 10 house site bounded by North : 20 feet width South – North common road East : Plot No. 11 South : East – West channel West : Plot No. 9
Within these admeasuring east west on the north 74 feet and on the south 74 feet (40+34=74) South North on the East 41 feet, on the west 36 feet an
Page 8 of 16
SA No.565/2023
extent of 2849 sq. feet (6 cents 233 sq feet) house site with all its easement rights.
The Applicant has submitted the following List of documents in support of their claim in the SA, which are as follows:
| S.No. | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 30.06.2023 | 13(2) notice |
| 2. | 12.09.2023 | 13(4) notice |
| 3. | 19.09.2023 | 13(4) notice |
3 . On the other hand, notices were issued to the Defendant Bank, and the Counsel for the Defendant Bank appeared before this Tribunal and filed Vakalat, Reply Statement and Written Argument in which he has submitted that the Applicant is the Partner of the Partnership Firm namely, M/s. G.P. Constructions engaged in the Civil Works Contract Business and other Allied Business. The Applicant with other Partners approached the State Bank of India, SME Branch, Madurai with an Application dated 07.03.2023 requesting to renew the existing limits of the following facility:
| Facilities | Existing | Proposed | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cash Credit | Rs. 2,50,00,000/ | Rs. 2,50,00,000/- | 17.25% |
| Working Capital Term Loan – II |
Rs. 50,00,000/- | Rs. 50,00,000/- | 17.25% |
| Funded Interest Term Loan– II |
Rs. 40,00,000/- | Rs. 40,00,000/- | 9.25% |
| Term Loan – II | Rs.1,90,00,000/- | Rs.1,90,00,000/- | 17.25% |
| Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line |
Rs. 49,00,000/- | Rs. 49,00,000/- | 17.25% |
| Funded Interest Term Loan – I |
Rs. 4,00,000/- | Rs. 4,00,000/- | 17.25% |
In this regard, a letter of arrangement dated 27.03.2023 was executed by the Applicant and other 2 partners, the Guarantors, i.e. his wife Umamaheshwari & K. Murugesan in favour of the Defendant Bank and Ms.
Page 9 of 16
SA No.565/2023
Umamaheshwari mortgaged the property mentioned in the schedule as security towards the said facility. It is submitted that the averment that the Applicant is promptly servicing the interest towards the loan account is false. The other averment in respect of the labour problem, price raise in raw material, heavy competition and delayed payment of Government besides demonetization, introduction of GST and COVID-19 Pandemic which affected the Highway Contract Work of the Applicant is false and introduced for the purpose of maintaining this SARFAESI Application. After availing the above said credit facility, the Defendants remain chronic defaulter in repaying the said facility availed with accrued interest from the State Bank of India, SME Branch Madurai, despite several reminders. Since, the Defendants failed to clear the outstanding despite receipt of several communications, the accounts as specified above maintained by the 1st Defendant becomes Non Performing Assets on 29.06.2023. Consequent to the same, a Demand Notice dated 30.06.2023 was issued to the Borrower and Guarantor u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the same was served to the Defendants on 03.07.2023.
It is further submitted that the Applicant was not prompt in repayment of loan from the date of availing the said credit facilities. As on 30.06.2023, the Applicant has to pay the loan amounts as follows:
| Sl. | Credit Facilities | Amount (in Rs.) | A/C. No. |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | |||
| 1 | Cash Credit Facility | 2,80,90,722 | 32620789047 |
| 2 | Term Loan | 1,96,60,298 | 38290610353 |
| 3 | Working Capital Term Loan – II | 53,88,728 | 40274013644 |
| 4 | Guaranteed Emergency Credit |
46,15,303 | 39401235509 |
| Line | |||
| 5 | Funded Interested Term Loan – I | 38,36,691 | 40274018723 |
| 6 | Funded Interested Term Loan – II | 1,95,686 | 39607769162 |
Page 10 of 16
SA No.565/2023
In total the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 6,17,87,728/- (Rupees Six Crore Seventeen Lakhs Eighty seven Thousand seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only) with as on date interest comes to 17.25% per annum to the Defendant Bank with future interest with agreed penal interest.
It is further submitted that, admittedly, the Applicant and the guarantor had not given any reply to the 13 (2) Demand Notice and failed to repay the outstanding in the loan account. In the meantime, the said loan accounts were migrated from SBI, SME Branch to the Defendant Bank for the purpose of recovery and the Defendant Bank following the Demand Notice by the Possession Notice U/s. 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act read with Rule 8 was issued on 19.09.2023 and the same was served. The said notice was published in Tamil through 'Hindu Tamil Dhisai' and in English through 'The Times of India' daily Newspaper on 21.09.2023. It is true that the Possession Notice issued earlier on 12.09.2023 was withdrawn since, inadvertently there is a mistake in the fact in issuing the same. The Defendant Bank assures that no cost was charged towards the issuance of the said Possession Notice.
It is further submitted that challenging the said Possession Notice, the Applicant preferred the present SARFAESI Application. Along with the main SARFAESI Application, the Applicant prayed for an interim stay of the sale proceedings. The main relief as well as the interim relief prayer by the Applicant cannot be sought for before this Hon'ble Tribunal for the following reasons:
a) In the present case, the bank through this Reply Statement as well as through the typeset of papers had clearly established the case on merits in their favour and the compliance of the mandates required under the Act and Rules. In such a case, I pray this Hon'ble Tribunal to dismiss the appeal itself on merits. When the appeal itself is liable to be dismissed, question in respect of granting interim stay should not be taken into consideration. As the proceedings u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act is summary
Page 11 of 16
SA No.565/2023
in nature and this Hon'ble Tribunal being constituted under the said Act and Rule have to render its justice at the earliest point ensuring that at no point of time there is lapse in enforcing the provisions of the Act. Even there is no provision available under RDB Act to stay the proceedings u/s.13(4) of it consequent proceedings.
b) The amount which is divested to the Applicant and other borrowers loan account is public money which should not be rested in the defaulters hand for years long and the same would prejudice the interest of the bank.
c) The Bank had followed the mandated under the SARFAESI Act and there are no reasons for violation of natural justice.
d) No request was made to bank in respect of the Statement of Accounts. For issuance of Statement of Accounts, the Applicant should have to make a request. The entire amount paid by the Applicant is credited to his account and there is no error.
e) Interest charged is as agreed by the Applicant with Bank at the time of availing the said loan which includes the agreed penal interest as per the agreement.
f) The notices and Paper Publication was issued as mandated under the SARFAESI Act and the same is enclosed in the Typed set of Papers.
g) Classifying the account as NPA is in accordance with law and the account details were clearly mentioned in the Demand Notice.
h) Photograph showing the affixture of the Notice is annexed in the typed set of papers.
i) Notice issued would shows the correct description of the property and correct outstanding towards the loan account for the date mentioned in the said notice. If the Applicant requires any further statement or clarification, he should have to approach the Applicant Bank.
Hence, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to DISMISS the above Application with exemplary cost and thus render justice.
Page 12 of 16
SA No.565/2023
Typed set of Papers filed by the Defendant Bank on 20.10.2023
| S.No. | Date | Particulars |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | 27.03.2023 | Letter of Arrangement |
| 2. | 30.06.2023 | Demand Notice u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act with Acknowledgement |
| 3. | 19.09.2023 | Possession Notice with Acknowledgment |
| 4. | 19.09.2023 | Photograph showing affixture of the Possession Notice |
| 5. | 21.09.2023 | Paper Publication in Hindu Tamil Thisai Tamil Dailyand Times of India English Daily |
| 6. | 17.10.2023 | Statement of Account |
4. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE PLEADINGS THE POINT WHICH ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS:-
I. Whether the Applicant has been able to prove his case in his favour?
II. Whether the Applicant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
5 . Having heard the parties and after going through the entire documents available on the records, this Tribunal find that there is no dispute with regard to the availment of loan facilities by creating equitable mortgage on his property. Since, the Applicant failed to repay the loan amount that made the loan account as NPA. It is the contention of the counsel for the Defendant Bank that the Applicant after availing the above said loan facilities, failed to re-pay the outstanding loan dues regularly. The Applicants stated in the SA that due to Labour problem, price rise in raw material, heavy competition in the field and delayed payment from Government besides demonetization, introduction of G.S.T. and COVID-19 Pandemic, Applicants Highway Contract work was affected and hence Applicant unable to pay the loan dues in time and there is no wilful default in repayment of the outstanding loan dues. I also find that thereafter, the Defendant Bank classified the loan account as NPA on 29.06.2023 and issued a Demand Notice U/s. 13(2) dated 30.06.2023 for a sum of Rs. 6,17,87,728/- (Rupees Six Crore Seventeen Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand seven Hundred and Twenty Eight only). Thereafter, the bank had issued a Possession Notice issued earlier on 12.09.2023 was withdrawn since,
Page 13 of 16
SA No.565/2023
inadvertently, there is a mistake in the fact in issuing the same. The Defendant Bank assures that no cost was charged towards the issuance of the said Possession Notice. And then, another Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023 was issued u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs. 6,39,93,683/- (Rupees Six Crore Thirty Nine Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Three only) as on 12.09.2023.
6 . In this case, the Applicant has challenged the Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023 u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act issued by the Defendant Bank.
The Applicant defended that the Bank has not made Paper Publication of the Demand Notice. I perused the Demand Notice and I find that the bank has issued the Demand Notice on 30.06.2023, and the loan account has been classified as NPA on 29.06.2023, which was received by the Borrower & other two guarantors on 03.07.2023 and as it appears from perusal of acknowledgement card (page nos. 18 to 50 of typeset of Bank). And, the Applicant also accepted in his main SA that he has received the Demand Notice. Hence, it is proved that the Demand Notice has been received by the Applicant. Hence, there is no necessary to the Bank to publish the Demand Notice in the Newspapers. However, I perused the documents filed by the Applicant and I find that he has not filed any proof showing that he has approached to the Defendant Bank or replied to the Demand Notice dated 30.06.2023 as required under section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the Applicant that the classification of his loan account as NPA as well as the Issuance of Demand Notice is in contravention of the rules and guidelines issued by the RBI.
The main grounds of the Applicant are, a) the impugned Possession Notice is bad in law and liable to be quashed, b) The classification of Applicant's account as NPA itself is invalid, incorrect and improper, c) The Defendant Bank failed to affix the 13(4) notice in the outer door of the secured assets as per SARFAESI Act and Rules, d) The Defendant Bank has
Page 14 of 16
SA No.565/2023
failed to furnish the Statement of Accounts, e) The Defendant Bank has failed to give correct description of properties for the secured assets.
The Applicant also contended that the Bank has not made Paper Publication of Possession Notice and they have failed to affix the 13(4) notice in the outer door of the secured assets as contemplated under the SARFAESI Act and Rules. I also perused the typeset of papers filed by the Defendant Bank, and I find that the bank has issued the Possession Notice dated 19.09.2023 and the acknowledgement cards, which is available at page no. 51-55 of Bank's Typeset, and I find that this Possession Notice was issued on 19.09.2023, which was received by the Applicant on 21.09.2023, which is evident from perusal of acknowledgement card at page no. 54-55 of the typeset of papers filed by the bank. The Counsel for the bank has also submitted that the Possession Notice was also published in two Newspapers on 21.09.2023, one is in English and another is in Tamil. I perused the documents and I find that Possession Notice was also published in two newspapers within 7 days from the date of issuance of Possession Notice, which is evident from perusal of Paper Publication of Possession Notice available at page nos. 61-63 and photo showing affixture of Possession Notice is available at page nos. 56-59 of bank's typed set of papers (and original photos showing the affixture of Possession Notice filed vide memo in SR No. 6872 of 2024). So, I find that bank has not violated any rules of SARFAESI Act in issuance of Possession Notice.
I also perused the documents filed by the Applicant and I find that the Applicant has failed to file any documentary evidences, such as whether he has made any request to the bank to produce the Statement of Accounts, whether he has sent a reply u/s. 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act to the Demand Notice issued by the Bank, Copy of loan agreement, rather, he has filed only a copy of Demand Notice and Possession Notice. In absence of documentary evidences, it cannot be decided that the Defendant Bank has not followed the procedure as mentioned in the SARFAESI Act.
Page 15 of 16
SA No.565/2023
Further, this Tribunal has granted a conditional interim stay order dated 20.10.2023 to the Applicant to give him a chance to prove his bonafide. But, unfortunately, which was also not complied with by the Applicant.
Hence, under these circumstances and in view of the above discussions, I find that the Applicant has failed to prove his case.
In the result, the SA No.565/2023 stands dismissed with no costs. Consequently, all pending IAs (if any) are also disposed of.
Dictated to PA (DK), taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court in this the 05th July, 2024.
sd/-
(SEEMA SINHA)
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dictated & Corrected by me
sd/-
(SEEMA SINHA)
PRESIDING OFFICER
Typed by me
Page 16 of 16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the SARFAESI Application challenging the Possession Notice under Section 13(4) can be maintained due to procedural irregularities?
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal should grant a stay on the possession proceedings pending the disposal of the Application?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
M.G. Pare
The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India
SEEMA SINHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
