Dismissed

V Saravanan v. City Union Bank Limited

DRT4 Apr 2025SA/173/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the application for non-prosecution as the applicant failed to comply with conditional orders, pay costs, file affidavits, or notice the respondent bank despite sufficient adjournments.

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application stood dismissed for non-prosecution; any interim order granted, if any, stands vacated.

V Saravanan versus City Union Bank Limited — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 173 of 2024

¶2

04.04.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 4^th day of April 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.173 of 2024

¶9

M.V. Saravanan,

¶10

S/o Mr. Venu, Plot No. 117,7B/196 Anna Nagar,

¶11

1^st Street MPM Street Vyasarpadi,

¶12

Chennai 600 039.

¶13

Mrs. S. Velakanni, W/o Mr. M. V. Saravanan, Plot No.117, 7B/196 Anna Nagar, 1^st Street MPM Street Vyasarpadi, Chennai 600 039.

¶14

Also at

¶15

Mrs. S. Velakanni, M. V. Saravanan Both are staying at,

¶16

No.21, Selliamman Koil Street,

¶17

Kathirvedu East, Kathirvedu,

¶18

Chennai 600 066. ….Applicants

¶19

-Vs-

¶20

City Union Bank Limited,

¶21

Credit Recovery Management Department, “Narayana” Administrative Office, No.24B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam, Pin 612 001.

¶22

City Union Bank Limited,

¶23

Branch Office, Plot No.590, 30 (Old No.35), Alagirisami Salai, KK Nagar,

¶24

Chennai – Tamil Nadu.

¶25

Pin 600 078. ….Respondents

¶26

SA No. 173 of 2024

¶27

04.04.2025

¶28

¶29

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶30

Counsel for Applicant : M/s S. Balaji Counsel for Respondent : M/s V. Balasubramani

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 01.11.2023 under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the „Act‟) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶33

Applicant is the borrower, who has filed the present SA, challenging the Possession Notice dated 06.01.2024 issued by respondent bank, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,39,24,769/- and the prayer as sought for in the SA is to set aside the possession notice.

¶34

The applicant is the borrower who has availed a Housing Loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on 28.09.2019 and executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds vide Doc. No.16804 of 2019 on 20.11.2019 favoring the respondent bank. Due to the default in the repayments the respondent bank have classified the account as NPA (Non-Performing Asset) and initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act.

¶35

The present S.A. is filed challenging the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 06.01.2024. On perusal of the submissions in the S.A reflects

¶36

SA No. 173 of 2024

¶37

¶38

04.04.2025

¶39

that the applicant was irregular in the payment and due to Covid-19 pandemic the irregularity continued and he also lost his job.

¶40

It is contended that the bank has not registered the property in central registry and have invoked the SARFAESI measures and have issued Section 13(2) Demand notice on 31.10.2023 which the applicant received the notice on 09.11.2023 by hand. After the receipt of the Section 13(2) demand notice by the 2^nd applicant has raised objections to the Demand notice on 21.12.2023.

¶41

However, the respondent bank has issued the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 06.01.2024 and have affixed the Possession notice on the property and failed to publish in two leading news papers

¶42

The tribunal vide proceedings dated 03.04.2024 dismissed the SIA 514/24 and SIA 515/24 with a cost of Rs.1000/- each payable to „Library Fund‟ of DRT and DRAT Bar Association and dismissed the stay petition. Further the Tribunal ordered to issue notice by e-mail to the respondent bank and to file the compliance of the cost and the AOS by applicant on 15.05.2024. The matter was adjourned to 11.07.2024, 30.08.2024, 08.10.2024, 25.11.2024 and finally to 21.03.2025. On 21.03.2025 none represent both the side and applicant is not keen to the compliance of the cost, nor reported nor filed AOS. The applicant didn‟t sent the notice on the respondent bank either by e-mail or either by post

¶43

SA No. 173 of 2024

¶44

04.04.2025

¶45

¶46

As the applicant after filing the present S.A. on 26.02.2024 has not complied the conditional order passed by this tribunal nor taken notice on the S.A to the respondent bank, in spite of sufficient adjournments. Further the applicant has not represented the matter even today and it appears that applicant is not keen in prosecuting the matter and accordingly S.A. stands dismissed for non prosecution.

¶47

Interim order granted if any, stands vacated. Pending IAs if any, are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to costs.

¶48

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶49

(Dictated to Mogesh, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 4^th day of April, 2025)

V Saravanan v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Saravanan v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasikala Productions versus Indian Bank

Sumangali Nagai Maligai versus Dbs Bank Limited

Ravishankar Industries versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Mala

State Bank of India versus Mohan Krishna Urath

Nandha T Saravanan versus Canara Bank