Disposed

J.R.Furnace And Ovens Private Limited Represented by Its Director Mr Ramesh Jayashankar v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT8 Apr 2025SA/206/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application challenging an e-auction notice, the DRT-III, Chennai disposed of the matter after recording a settlement agreement between the applicant and the respondent bank. The bank agreed to release specific property documents upon payment of dues, and the court directed the immediate release of documents for vacant land.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release Palavakkam property documents; SA dismissed as infructuous.

J.R.Furnace And Ovens Private Limited Represented by Its… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 206 of 2025

¶2

08.04.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 08^th day of April 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.206 of 2025

¶9

J.R. Furnace And Ovens Private Limited Represented by its Director Mr. Jayashankar, S/o. Mr. Ramesh, Having office at F-8, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur – 601 201

¶10

Also at No.2A, Near Ambedkar Nagar, Adinath Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099 And Another ….Applicants -VsThe Authorised Officer ICICI Bank Limited Having office at : Plot No.24, South Phase, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Block No.1, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058 ….Respondent Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s K.A. Ramakrishnan Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Kvp. Deepak Raj

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 07.04.2025 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

¶14

SA No. 206 of 2025

¶15

08.04.2025

¶16

¶17

‘Act’) challenging the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶18

The present SA is filed challenging the e-auction sale notice dated 05.03.2025 scheduling the property to be sold on 08.04.2025. It is the case of the Applicant that they availed overdraft loan by various Account Nos.027805004186, 027855000003 & 027805004214 for which the Applicant has executed mortgage deed favouring the Bank by deposit of title deeds as collateral security.

¶19

The Applicant was regularly paying the repayment but due to financial crisis the applicant defaulted in the repayment and the bank have issued under Section 13(2) Demand Notice on 15.04.2024 claiming an amount of Rs.4,29,62,735/- and also issued the Possession Notice under Section 13(4) on 05.10.2024.

¶20

After receipt of the demand notice, the Applicant approached the Bank with the valid observations, which was not considered by the Respondent Bank. Hence, the Applicant filed the SA No.878/2024 seeking to set aside the possession notice dated 05.10.2024, which stands posted on 03.04.2025 for counter.

¶21

The Tribunal vide proceedings dated 10.12.2024 directed the Applicant to deposit 10% of the amount due within a week and 20% to be paid within

¶22

SA No. 206 of 2025

¶23

08.04.2025

¶24

¶25

30 days. Accordingly, the Applicant have complied with the 1^st condition of the interim order by depositing the 10% of the amount, which is Rs.42,96,273/- on 16.12.2024 and further made a deposit amount of 10% on 31.01.2025 and thus complied the interim order passed by this Tribunal.

¶26

The matter was originally posted to 14.02.2025 for hearing and the applicant has filed IA No.275/2025 seeking for extension of time for further compliance in SA No.878/2024.

¶27

Now, the Bank has issued the e-auction sale notice dated 05.03.2025 claiming an amount of Rs.3,32,56,410/- due as on 02.02.2025. The applicant has raised various contentions and have prayed to set aside the sale notice dated 05.03.2025.

¶28

When the matter was taken up yesterday i.e. on 07.04.2025, the Applicant has filed a Memo submitting that the Applicant has approached the Bank for settlement of dues under OTS, which the Bank has agreed for OTS settlement of Rs.2,57,50,287.10/P and as per the terms and conditions of the OTS, the Applicant must pay Rs.1.00 Crore on or before 05.07.2025, which the Applicant has complied by making the payment of Rs.60 Lakhs on 29.03.2025 through RTGS and further sum of Rs.40 Lakhs paid by way of Demand Draft on 29.03.2025.

¶29

SA No. 206 of 2025

¶30

08.04.2025

¶31

¶32

Along with the Memo, the Applicant has also filed the OTS letter termed as settlement of dues of loan Account No.027805004186. It is seen that the Applicant has to make a further payment i.e. the 3^rd installment of Rs.40 Lakhs on 30.04.2025 another Rs.40 Lakhs on 30.05.2025 and balance amount of Rs.96,00,287/- on 30.06.2025. On payment, as per the terms, the loan account will be closed after realizing the agreed settlement amount.

¶33

Memo filed by the Applicant is taken on record and today the bank has filed a memo submitting that the matter is settled for an amount of Rs.2,76,00,287/- and the applicant has agreed to make the payment.

¶34

Date	Instalment	Amount (Rs.)
30.03.2025	Instalment 1	60,00,000/-
05.04.2025	Instalment 2	40,00,000/-
30.04.2025	Instalment 3	40,00,000/-
30.05.2025	Instalment 4	40,00,000/-
30.06.2025	Instalment 5	96,00,287/-
	Total:	2,76,00,287/-

¶35

It is admitted that the Applicant has made a payment of Rs.1 Crore, so far,

¶36

hence the bank has stopped the auction of the schedule property, and submits that the SA may be dismissed as infructuous. The Bank along with the Memo has filed a letter titled as settlement of dues of the loan account, where it is seen that Bank has acknowledged and considered the request of exceptional basis and they had agreed to part the release of Palavakkam (vacant land property) documents once the said dues of Rs.1.00 Crore is

¶37

SA No. 206 of 2025

¶38

08.04.2025

¶39

¶40

paid on or before 05.04.2025, as per schedule. Further another amount of Rs.1,76,00,287/- must be paid to release the Mannadi (Commercial Property) documents on or before 30.06.2025, as per schedule.

¶41

The relevant para of the settlement terms is extracted as under:

¶42

We write with reference to our discussion wherein we acknowledge and considered your request on expectational basis and has agreed to part release of the Palavakkam (vacant land property) documents once the said dues of Rs.10,000,000 Cr (Rupees One Crore) must pay on or before April 05, 2025, as per schedule.

¶43

And another Rs.17,600,287 Cr (One Crore Seventy-Six Lakh Two Eighty Seven) must pay to release the Mannadi (Commercial property) documents on or before June 30, 2025, as per schedule.

¶44

It is manifest from the record that the Applicant and Respondent Bank have entered into OTS settlement and as per the terms of the settlement, the applicant had also made a payment of Rs.1.00 Crore on or before 05.04.2025. As the Applicant has already complied payment of Rs.1.00 Core and the Respondent Bank had agreed to release the Palavakkam (vacant land property), the Respondent Bank is hereby directed to release the Palavakkam property documents in compliance of the terms and conditions of the settlement.

¶45

SA No. 206 of 2025

¶46

08.04.2025

¶47

¶48

Both the memos filed by the Applicant as well as by the Respondent Bank is taken on record and accordingly SA is disposed of in terms of the Memo filed by both the Counsels. Both the Counsels have endorsed in the proceeding sheet conceding to the settlement and the terms of the Memo filed by them.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

(Dictated to Sudhakar (Steno), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 08^th day of April, 2025)

J.R.Furnace And Ovens Private Limited Represented by Its Director Mr Ramesh Jayashankar v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.R.Furnace And Ovens Private Limited Represented by Its Director Mr Ramesh Jayashankar 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 Jk Sahaant versus City Union Bank Limited

Lakshmi Balaji Reality Private Limited versus City Union Bank Limited

R P K Jeyakumar versus Axis Bank

Uco Bank versus E. Thirugnansambandam

lAKSHMI Vilas Bank versus M/S Mun Papers

Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. versus M s Himaja Alloys Pvt. Ltd.