Disposed

Anitha v. Canara Bank

DRT28 Mar 2025SA/19/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of the Securitization Application filed against SARFAESI measures. The applicant borrowed a housing loan and claimed defaultlessness until the bank issued notices. Subsequently, the applicants regularized the account by remitting funds, making the enforcement proceedings infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Securitization application disposed off; interim orders vacated; pending IAs disposed of; no cost.

Anitha versus Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

SA No.19/2024

28.03.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 28^th day of March, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 19 of 2024

¶8

1.	M/s. Anitha W/o. Krishnan, 87, Hariharanatha Swami Kovil Street, Dharmapuri – 636 701.
2.	Krishnan.A, S/o. Andi Kulanthai Gounder, 87, Hariharanatha Swami Kovil Street, Dharmapuri – 636 701.
3.	Saravanan. K, S/o. Krishnan, 87, Hariharanatha Swami Kovil Street, Dharmapuri – 636 701.
4.	Ellango. A, S/o. Annamalai, 64, Nattanmaipuram, Dharmapuri	…Applicants
	-Vs-
	The Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Dharmapuri Branch, 68/2, Kamalalayam Complex, Kandasamy Vathiyar Street, Dharmapuri – 636 701.	…Respondent
C	ounsels on record / appeared:

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : Ld. Counsel Mr. Mohan Raj Counsel for respondent : Ld. Counsel Ms. Akshai Mani

SA No.19/2024

28.03.2025

: - F I N A L O R D E R - :

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 03.01.2024 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].

¶15

The applicants 1 to 3 are the borrowers of the loan account. The 1^st applicant borrowed a housing loan to the tune of Rs. 24,40,000/- on 12.03.2014 and had mortgaged the property as security towards the credit facility. The second and the 3^rd applicants are the husband and the son of the 1^st applicant and the 4^th applicant is the guarantor to the loan

¶16

It is contended that the applicants have made payments regularly without any default and have nearly made a payment of Rs. 18 Lakhs towards the credit facility. The applicants have maintained the loan account within the limit from 2014 onwards. The 2^nd applicant is the milk supplier and his business was affected due to COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in huge loss. Hence, the applicant borrowers had borrowed huge sums of money from local lenders in order to pay regular instalments to the respondent bank. Thereafter, the 2^nd applicant met with an minor accident and was bedridden for

SA No.19/2024

28.03.2025

3 months. In spite of all the difficulties they were making the payments and maintaining the credit account within the limit.

¶21

Thereafter, suddenly the bank has issued S. 13(2) demand notice on 29.09.2023, calling upon to pay a sum of Rs. 29,35,786.23/-, which is not served to the other applicants and the guarantors.

¶22

The account has been classified as NPA on 28.09.2023. The applicant sought for restructuring of the loan in spite of the problem faced by them because of COVID-19. Further, the bank failed to furnish the statement of accounts, and the bank all of a sudden issued a possession notice dated 04.12.2023 which is also not served on the other applicants and the guarantor and the respondent bank have been claiming an amount of Rs. 29,35,786.23/- as on 29.09.2023.

¶23

On 22.09.2023 at 6.40PM Branch Manager visited the applicants property and threatened to take legal actions and damages his mobile phone and used filthy language. Hence, he was injured and admitted as inpatient before the Dharmapuri G.H.

¶24

Thereafter, the applicant lodged criminal complaint FIR. No. 538 dated 25.09.2023 against the respondent bank staff and in order to escape clutches of the law, the bank manager also filed FIR. No. 539 dated 25.09.2023. Based on the personal grudge the bank have issued the S.13(2) demand notice dated 29.09.2023 in hurried manner without following the RBI Guidelines followed by issuance of

SA No.19/2024

28.03.2025

S. 13(4) possession notice dated 04.12.20223. The bank has not followed the RBI guidelines, the mortgage is not registered as per S. 26(D) of the SARFAESI Act. On these grounds, applicants prays to set aside the S. 13(4) possession notice.

¶29

The Respondent bank has filed vakalat on 05.01.2024. On perusal of records it is seen that the Tribunal vide proceedings dated 11.01.2024, it is recorded that the applicant vide memo SR.No.466/2024 submitting that they have already deposited a sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs being 10% of the outstanding amount with the respondent bank on 03.01.2024 and are ready to remit another 10% within 4 weeks. The Tribunal on considering the submissions directed the respondent bank to maintain Status-Quo and further directed the applicant to deposit yet another 10% of the outstanding amount due and the matter stood adjourned to 23.02.2024.

¶30

On 12.03.2024 the applicant had not filed the memo not AOS reporting he compliance. Hence, matter stood adjourned to 05.04.2024. On 05.04.2024, it is seen recorded that the memo reporting the compliance of the second part of the order is complied and the same is reported Vide SR. No. 2670/2024. Hence, the matter stood adjourned to 20.05.2024 for filing of counter.

¶31

Though, the respondent bank had filed vakalat on 05.01.2024 there is no counter on 16.07.2024,13.09.2024,03.12.2024. On

SA No.19/2024

28.03.2025

27.02.2025, the bank has filed a memo submitting that the account is regularised and after upgradation of the loan account applicant has committed the default and hence the same has been classified as per Norms and a fresh SARFAESI measures are initiated which is not challenged by the applicant before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Memo filed by the bank is put up on the file and the matter was taken up on 03.03.2025 to 28.03.2025.

¶36

Heard and perused the records of the case.

¶37

On 28.03.2025, both the counsels present. Memo filed by the bank is taken on record. It is seen that the bank submitted in the memo that the account was upgraded and hence the actions initiated by the respondent bank stood infructuous. As the applicants have committed the default in the loan account and the same has classified the NPA on 29.10.2024 and pursuant to which respondent bank has issued fresh demand notice under S. 13(2) on 13.11.2024.

¶38

Despite, having knowledge of the consequences of the proceedings the applicant has not challenge the same hence, the bank has issued the S. 13(4) possession notice dated 18.01.2025.

¶39

Subsequently, to the issuance of the possession notice the applicant have approached the respondent bank and remitted an amount of Rs. 3,58,000/- on 17.03.2025 and 19.03.2025 which lead to regularisation or upgradation of the loan account. By the virtue of

SA No.19/2024

28.03.2025

the regularisation/upgradation of the loan account made by the applicants herein the entire measures initiated stands infructuous. Memo filed by the bank is taken on record. Applicant after the initiation of fresh measures had approached the bank and have regularised the loan account. Nothing survives in the present SA for further adjudication.

¶44

Accordingly, SA stands disposed off as account is regularised. Interim order if any stands vacated. All the pending IA’s are disposed off. No order as to cost. Both the counsels have endorsed the same in the proceeding sheet.

¶45

(Dictated to the Stenographer(MS), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28^th day of March, 2025)

¶46

Sd/- S.V. GOWRAMMA PRESIDING OFFICER-DRT III

¶47

SA No.19/2024 7 28.03.2025

Anitha v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha v. Canara 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

V Tamilselvan versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Dkam Interior Pvt. Ltd. rep by its Director Mr B Baskar and another versus Indian Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shanthiram Engineering

State Bank of India versus M/S No 1 City Mobile Coffee Suppliers

Oriental Bank of Commerce versus M/S Sri Sastha Agencies

M/s. Sivanesan Hardwares versus Fedbank Financial services Ltd.