Dismissed

Ms Mahamai Traders v. Union Bank of India

DRT5 Feb 2025SA/425/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the applicant challenged the bank's SARFAESI proceedings, arguing that a notice dated 24.04.2023 superseded an earlier Section 13(2) notice. Finding no prejudice as the applicant failed to pay within the additional period, the tribunal dismissed the application and upheld the bank's actions.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed; all pending IAs disposed of.

Ms Mahamai Traders versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

SA No. 425 of 2024 M/s Mahamai Traders

¶3

Versus

¶4

A.O. Union Bank of India

¶5

05.02.2025

¶6

Item No.15

¶7

Present: Sh.Sahil Khunger, Counsel for the Applicant.

¶8

Sh.Kamal Satija, Counsel for Respondent Bank.

¶9

M/s Mahamai Traders, through its proprietor Shri Mahesh Bhasin (Applicant) has filed this Securitization Application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against the Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India (Respondent).

¶10

Admittedly, on 27.04.1992, Union Bank of India had sanctioned a CC Limit of Rs. 30 lacs to the Applicant. The secure the loan, Applicant had created security interest in respect of property fully detailed in para No. 4 of the application. Applicant could not make the repayment of the loan and on 13.03.2023, Bank declared the account NPA. On 17.03.2023, it issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. However, on 24.04.2023, Mr.Anuj Gupta, Advocate of the Respondent bank sent a notice to the Applicant to make the payment within 15 days, otherwise SARFAESI action would be initiated. On 26.10.2023, Bank took the symbolic possession of the property. On 15.10.2024, Applicant filed the present SA.

¶11

Bank has filed reply to the SA and has denied the case of the Applicant.

¶12

Mr.Khunger has argued that the Bank had itself issued a notice on 24.04.2023 giving 15 days time to make the payment and had also

¶13

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶14

mentioned that the Bank would be free to take the SARFAESI action. In these circumstances, the Bank should have issued a fresh notice under Section 13(2) and the earlier notice dated 17.03.2023 issued under Section 13(2) is of no avail.

¶15

Per contra , Mr.Satija, counsel for the Respondent Bank has argued that the notice dated 24.04.2023 had been inadvertently issued at the instructions of the Branch Manager. Even after 24.04.2023, Applicant has not made any payment. Mr.Satish, has submitted that there is no merit in the present SA and the same be dismissed.

¶16

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶17

Admittedly, on 13.03.2023, the Bank declared the account NPA and on 17.03.2023, it issued the notice under Section 13(2). There is no denying the fact that on 24.04.2023, Bank had also issued a notice to the Applicant asking them to make the payment within 15 days, otherwise, SARFAESI action would be initiated, yet, I am of the considered view that the Applicant has not been prejudiced. Even after the receipt of notice dated 24.04.2023, Applicant did not make any payment and on 26.10.2024 Bank took the symbolic possession of the property. I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present SA. The same is hereby dismissed . All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of, accordingly.

¶18

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. Thereafter, file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶19

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer Pronounced in open court. DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶20

Manoj/05.02.2025

Ms Mahamai Traders v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Mahamai Traders v. Union Bank of India

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

Mahesh K K versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Uttam Kumar

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Kumar Enterprises and others

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S Kataria Trading Co.

Madan Gopal Chug versus Shriram Housing Finance Limited

Vishwanath Chandran versus Icici Bank Limited