Allowed

S Srinivasulu v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT3 Apr 2024SA/624/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the SARFAESI application filed by the applicant against ICICI Bank. With the respondent absent and failing to file counter-documents despite notices, the Tribunal directed the bank not to debit expenses, ordered a deposit of approximately Rs.1,17,000, allowed further proceedings only on cogent evidence of higher debt, and restrained further action pending these d

What did the court decide?

SA allowed; Respondent restrained from debiting expenses and initiating further actions; Applicant directed to deposit Rs.1,17,000 plus interest.

S Srinivasulu versus Icici Bank Limited — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

SA No.624 of 2023

03.04.2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 03^rd day of April, 2024

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.624 of 2023

¶9

Mr. S. Srinivasulu Flat No.F1, Block Lily First Floor, RC-Mehta Green Park, No.1, Milk Colony Road, Madhavaram Chennai-600 060. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs -

¶11

The Authorized Officer, ICICI Bank Limited Plot No.24, South Phase, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Block No.1, Ambattur, Chennai-600 058. ….Respondent

¶12

C ounsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Ch. Paranjothi Respondent remained absent

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 13.10.2023 issued by respondent bank, for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,19,443/-

¶16

Counsel for applicant is present. No representation on behalf of respondent

¶17

bank even during second round of call work. Respondent Bank is called absent. Counter and typed set of documents also has not been filed evidencing their SARFAESI actions initiated against applicant and the mortgaged property.

SA No.624 of 2023

03.04.2024

It is the case of applicant that he had discharged the entire loan account in 180 installments as per the agreement and that their contract concluded by October 2022 having commenced in the year 2007. It is also the case of the applicant that the statement of account given by the respondent bank is showing a debit balance of only Rs.1,16,629.09p as of October, 2022, while the respondent bank is making a false claim of Rs.35,00,000/- as per their demand notice and sum of Rs. 20,19,443/- as per the impugned possession notice.

¶22

Applicant is disputing all these amounts / demands of the respondent bank and submits that applicant had raised objection to the demand notice on 21.06.2023, for which no reply was given by respondent bank, but proceeded further with the issuance of impugned possession notice. Ld. Counsel for applicant submits that although applicant is ready to remit the amount as shown in the statement of account due and payable as of October 2022, respondent bank has refused receipt of the same and insisted for repayment of 20,19,443 as claimed in the possession notice.

¶23

Perused records. Heard Ld. Counsel for applicant.

¶24

In the circumstances, as respondent bank despite acknowledging notices thrice from this Tribunal, did not choose to appear or file any counter and typed set of documents to dispute the contentions raised on behalf of applicants herein, consequently, SA stands allowed.

¶25

Respondent bank is directed not to debit any of its SARFAESI action expenses to the borrower’s loan account. Applicant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,17,000/to the credit of his loan account forthwith, together with applicable simple rate of interest

SA No.624 of 2023

03.04.2024

of 10% from October, 2022 by or before 30.04.2024. The reason for this Tribunal ordering simple rate of interest of 10% contrary to contractual rate of interest is on the surmise that applicant had discharged all his EMIs as per his loan tenure and the statement of account reflected the outstanding at Rs.1,16,629.98p. Respondent bank has not put up appearance and did not even file any documents contradicting the contentions of applicant, despite acknowledging notices thrice from this Tribunal.

¶30

In the circumstances, respondent bank is restrained not to initiate any further SARFEASI actions against applicant. If respondent bank can establish with cogent evidence that the outstanding due and recoverable from applicant is beyond the money now contemplated / directed to be deposited by applicant (viz., Rs.1,17,000/- with 10% simple interest), respondent bank will be at liberty to establish its debt and proceed further in accordance to law, including under SARFAESI Act.

¶31

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶32

With the above directions, SA stands disposed.

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 03^rd day of April, 2024)

¶35

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

S Srinivasulu v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Srinivasulu v. Icici 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

Mr Geridharan a B versus Shriram Finance Ltd.

N Kumaravel versus the Authourised Office Manappuram Home Finance Ltd.

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Rr Constrcution

Goda Venkataraman versus Deustche Bank

Cgm Impex versus Indian Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus a S Annamalai Chettiar and Company