Disposed

Syed Ali Fathima v. Hdfc Bank

DRT1 Apr 2025SA/241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant filed a securitization application challenging a bank's sale notice for loan recovery. During pendency, the loan was settled, mortgage discharged, and title deeds returned. The DRT held nothing survived for adjudication and disposed of the application as settled.

What did the court decide?

Securitization application disposed of as settled between the parties; interim orders vacated; pending IAs disposed.

Syed Ali Fathima versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.241/2024

01.04.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 01^st day of April, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

S.A. No.241 of 2024

¶9

Mrs. Syed Ali Fathima Plot No.232, Door No.39/19, 2nd Cross Street, CIT Nagar, Nandanam Chennai ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer HDFC Bank Limited Retail Portfolio Management, 1st Floor, ITC Centre, 760, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 …..Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s A. Ilangovan Counsel for Respondent : M/s K.J. Parthasarathy

¶14

: - ORDER ON SA NO.241 OF 2024- :

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 04.05.2024 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].

SA No.241/2024

01.04.2025

This S.A. is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 03.04.2024 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 15.05.2024 for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,06,12,591/-

¶20

Today memos are filed on behalf of applicant and respondent bank submitting therein that during the pendency of SA, borrower had approached the respondent bank and settled the loan account. It is further submitted by respondent bank that the mortgage stands discharged and original title deeds had been returned. Hence nothing survives for adjudication in the above SA. Thus submitting, prayed for passing necessary orders

¶21

Heard counsel for applicant and respondent FI and perused the records.

¶22

Memos filed on behalf of Applicant and Respondent FI are taken on record.

¶23

As matter is amicably settled between the parties and respondent

¶24

bank had also reported that mortgage is discharged and title deeds are returned, nothing survives for adjudication in this SA.

¶25

Accordingly, SA stands disposed as settled between the parties

¶26

Interim order granted, if any stands vacated and pending IA’s are disposed of in terms of this order. No order as to cost.

SA No.241/2024

01.04.2025

Both the counsels have signed in the proceedings sheet in

¶31

confirmation of the settlement arrived between the parties.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 01^st day of April, 2025)

Syed Ali Fathima v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Ali Fathima v. Hdfc 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

Anitha versus Canara Bank

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

Oriental Bank of Commerce versus M/S Sri Sastha Agencies

Dr a Magesh versus Repco Home Finance Limited

C Chitra and E Sasikala versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Bank of India versus M/S All Will Moulds and Dies