Allowed

Mr Sankar Chinna v. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

DRT4 Mar 2025SA/472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a Securitization Application filed by a borrower challenging a Section 14 order. The Tribunal relieved itself of the duty to adjudicate merits because the respondent failed to file counter-arguments or documents, directing the respondent to restore possession.

What did the court decide?

SA allowed; Section 14 order dated 12.06.2023 set aside; Respondent directed to restore physical possession with mortgagor.

Mr Sankar Chinna versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No.472 of 2024

¶2

04.03.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 04^th day of March, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 472 of 2024

¶8

Mr. Shankar Chinna No.11B, G-1, Venkateswara Flats Venkatessa Nagar, 1^st Street Extension Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093 ….Applicant -Vs-

¶9

The Authorised Officer Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Company Limited Branch Office at No.3F, 3^rd Floor Kasthuri Appt., JP Avenue, 6^th Street Dr. Radhakrishnan Road Mylapore, Chennai – 600 040 ….Respondent

¶10

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶11

Counsel for Applicant : M/s V.R. Ramesh Counsel for Respondent : M/s V. Balasubramani

¶12

ORDER ON SA No. 472 OF 2024

¶13

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 26.07.2024 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].

¶14

The applicant is borrower, who has filed the present S.A praying to grant an order of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Section 14 order dated 12.06.2023 passed by Ld. CMM, Egmore in Crl.M.P. No.4963 of 2023, pursuant to measures initiated by respondent financial institution for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,28,16,151,83p.

¶15

SA No.472 of 2024

¶16

04.03.2025

¶17

¶18

This case was moved before this Tribunal on 30.07.2024 by the applicant. After hearing the applicant, respondent financial institution was directed to maintain status quo subject to applicant depositing 10% of the dues within a week from the date of order and equal sum to be deposited within 30 days thereafter and notice was ordered to respondent bank returnable by 06.09.2024.

¶19

Respondent financial institution had entered appearance and filed their vakalat on 27.12.2024. However, it is seen that counter and documents has not been filed by respondent inspite of opportunity given on 06.09.2024, 06.11.2024. 27.12.2024 and 05.03.2024 i.e., today and vakalat alone has been filed only on 27.12.2024.

¶20

Heard counsel for applicant and perused records.

¶21

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the Section 14 order 12.06.2023 passed by Ld. CMM, Egmore in Crl.M.P. No.4963 of 2023 pursuant to the measures initiated by respondent financial institution

¶22

On hearing the applicant, Tribunal ordered notice to respondent bank returnable by 06.09.2024 and the matter thus stood posted today for filing counter and typed set of documents by respondent bank.

¶23

Today there was no representation for respondent bank even in the 1^st and 2^nd round of call work. It is seen from the records that vakalath has been filed on 27.12.2024 instance, despite advent of two months, respondent financial institution did not file their counter and typed set of documents.

¶24

The Respondent being the secured creditor is bound to assist the Tribunal in adjudicating the matter with regard to the measures initiated by them under the Act.

¶25

SA No.472 of 2024

¶26

04.03.2025

¶27

¶28

It is seen from the records that the respondent, being a secured creditor, despite filing vakalath on 27.12.2024, did not choose to file any objections countering all the contentions raised by the applicant in the SA.

¶29

The Tribunal under Section 17(1) is to adjudicate the measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act and the Tribunal under S 17[5] the ACT is duty bound to dispose of the SA as expeditiously as possible within 60 days from the date of the application and total period of pendency of the application shall not exceed 04 months from the date of the application.

¶30

As the respondent bank has not come forward to counter all the allegations / averment in respect of the measures taken by the respondent under the Act, the present SA is only to be allowed.

¶31

Accordingly, SA stands allowed. Section 14 Order dated 12.06.2023 passed by Ld. CMM, Egmore in Crl.M.P. No.4963 of 2023 is hereby set aside. Respondent is directed to restore the physical possession with mortgagor, if physical possession is taken pursuant to Section 14 order dated 12.06.2023. However, respondent financial institution will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶32

Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated. Pending IA/s if any are disposed of in terms of this Order. No order as to cost.

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 04^th day of March, 2025)

Mr Sankar Chinna v. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sankar Chinna v. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private 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

United Bank of India versus Siva Sakthi Rice Industries

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Sri Aasila Paper Boards

Bank of Maharashtra versus D T Enterprises

Mr a Ramalingam versus Indian Overseas Bank

N Thulasi versus Iifl Home Loan

State Bank of India versus Vasu