Dismissed

Mr D Mahendran v. State Bank of India

DRT12 Apr 2024SA/566/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In SARFAESI Application No.566 of 2023, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application without costs for suppression of facts. The applicant filed a new application challenging Section 14 proceedings despite a prior application on the same cause of action being dismissed on 16.09.2023. The applicant was found to have hoodwinked the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

SA dismissed without costs; interim stay, if any, vacated; all other pending IAs closed.

Mr D Mahendran versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

SA No.566 of 2023

12.04.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.566 of 2023

¶9

Mr. D. Mahendran, S/o. Durai,

¶10

M. Kalpana, W/o. D. Mahendran

¶11

No. D, 2^nd Floor, Built Tech Sarvam Apartments, No.29, Jai Balaji Nagar Extn., Ramapuram Village, Chennai-600 089. ….Applicants

¶12

Vs-

¶13

The Chief Manager & Authorized Officer, M/s. State Bank of India, A.R.M. Branch, No.44, Eldams Road, 1^st Floor, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018. ……Respondent

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. N. Seshadri Counsel for Respondent : M/s. N. Kishore Kumar

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This SA is filed challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank under

¶18

Section 14 of SARFAESI Act before Ld. CMM, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No.65 of 2022 dated 08.03.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.83,82,651/-.

¶19

Counsel for respondent bank is present. No representation on behalf of applicant even during second round of call work.

SA No.566 of 2023

12.04.2024

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for respondent bank and perused records. This case was taken up on 06.11.2023 on mentioning made by Ld. Counsel for applicants. Counsel for respondent bank, who was on caveat, was also present. After hearing both parties, following order was passed:

¶24

“Applicants may cause notice to Authorized officer for taking out their personal belongings alleged to have been left inside at the time of taking physical possession, if advised so by giving three working days prior notice to the Authorised officer. On receipt of such notice, Authorised officer is permitted to reopen the premises and hand over personal belongings of the applicants by taking due panchanama and serving a copy of the same on them. Applicants are permitted to approach respondent bank or the auction purchaser for any negotiation if advised so in terms of the submissions of Ld. Counsel for applicant, Sh.N.Seshadri. Call on 06.12.2023 for filing counter and typed set of documents by respondent bank.”

¶25

Respondent bank had filed their counter and typed set of documents evidencing the action taken by them under the Act.

¶26

Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that applicant had approached this Tribunal with unclean hands and have completely supressed the earlier TSA No.511 of 2023 (originally filed as SA No.274 of 2022 before DRT-II), challenging the same Section 14 proceedings initiated by respondent bank. It is further submitted that TSA NO.511 of 2022 was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.09.2023 upholding the actions of respondent bank under SARFAESI Act. It is further submitted that this is

SA No.566 of 2023

12.04.2024

the second SA filed by applicant challenging the very same proceedings initiated by respondent bank under Section 14 before Ld. CJM, supressing the previous SA filed and the dismissal order, taking the Advocate Commissioner’s notice as limitation. It is further submitted that SA No.230 of 2021 and 260 of 2021 has also been filed by applicants before DRT-II, challenging the sale notices issued by respondent bank. As applicants did not comply with the conditional order imposed by the Tribunal, respondent bank proceeded with sale on 31.08.2023 and sold the property to one Mr. Saravanakumar, highest bidder for Rs.64,20,000/-, which was duly credited to borrower’s loan account and sale certificate has also been issued in favour of auction purchaser. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submitted that subsequent to sale respondent bank had also taken physical possession of the property on 05.10.2023, subsequent to which the present SA is filed supressing the filing and dismissal of SA for the same cause of action. Thus, submitting Ld. Counsel for respondent bank prayed for dismissal of SA.

¶31

On perusal of records, it is found that counter and typed set of documents filed on behalf of respondent bank was sent to applicant directly as counsel for applicant refused to receive the same stating that he is not appearing for applicant anymore. Counter and typed set of documents sent to applicant by post returned as ‘left’, which is the same address as given in the SA at the time of filing this case.

¶32

Consequently, the present SA lacks any merits but in turn applicant had hoodwinked this Tribunal by supressing the fact about SA already filed for the same cause of action and its dismissal thereto.

SA No.566 of 2023

12.04.2024

In the result, SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶37

With the above observation, SA stands disposed.

¶38

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

¶39

guidelines.

¶40

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the

¶41

12^th day of April, 2024)

¶42

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

Mr D Mahendran v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr D Mahendran v. State Bank of India

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

S Altaf Ahamed versus Union Bank of India

Sasi Patel versus Tamilnadu Grama Bank

Rajeswari Omkumar versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

M s a S Juice And Maligai Store versus City Union Bank Limited

Prakash Patel versus Repco Home Finance Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M s Green Leaf