Dismissed

Anees Fathima v. Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

DRT24 Mar 2025SA/486/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application challenging an auction sale notice. The court held that since the proposed sale did not materialize and there were no successful bidders, the applicants' prayers became infructuous, resulting in the dismissal of the application.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application dismissed as infructuous.

Anees Fathima versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 486 of 2023

¶2

24.03.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 24^th day of March 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.486 of 2023

¶9

Mrs. AnnesFathima. M

¶10

W/o. AhamedMansoor .L

¶11

M/s. RIFQA Fashions No.77/159, AngappaNaicken Street,

¶12

Mannady, Chennai – 600 001.

¶13

Mr. AhamedMansoor. L

¶14

S/o. Liyakath Ali, No.28/59, 2^nd floor, LingiChetty Street,

¶15

Mannady, Chennai – 600 001. ….Applicants

¶16

-Vs-

¶17

M/s. Jana Small Finanace Bank Ltd., Having its office at No.28/36,

¶18

1^st floor, South West Boad Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Rep. by its Authorised Officer. ….Respondent

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 01.11.2023 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

¶23

SA No. 486 of 2023

¶24

24.03.2025

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

Applicant is the Proprietorix concerned represented by its Proprietorix Mrs. Fatheema who is doing Whole sale Textile and Retail business in the name of M/s RIFQA Fashions dealing in Islamic Women‟s, all collections, Burka, Hijab, Scarf, Ladies inner wear and imported goods, wholesale and retail along with tailoring, since past 30 years.

¶28

The applicant had approached the Respondent bank and availed the Business loan of Rs.20,14,201/- disbursed on 15.03.2019, loan was to be repaid at 96 EMI‟s (8 Years) from 16.03.2019 to 10.03.2027 at Rs.41,282/per month, applicant had also availed ICICI Life Insurance. The second applicant is the personal Guarantor to the loan availed by the fist applicant. The applicant had paid 46 EMI‟s and the last EMI was paid on 15.06.2023 and the respondent bank refused to receive the EMI.

¶29

It is contended that the applicant received the Possession Notice dated 01.11.2021 where it is mentioned that the Demand Notice dated 11.08.2021 was served. The Applicant has challenged the sale notice dated 17.08.2023 in the present S.A. and in the ground contend that bringing the property for auction is in gross violation of law and procedures, the bank has not taken note the EMI‟s is paid up to date till June 2023 and for the month of July & August 2023, the bank has refused to take the EMI

¶30

SA No. 486 of 2023

¶31

¶32

24.03.2025

¶33

It is contended that the Demand Notice was not served on the applicant and there is long and unexplained delay between the demand notice dated 11.08.2021, possession notice dated 01.11.2021 and the auction notice dated 17.08.2023, Further it is submitted that bank had not obtained valuation report from the approved valuver under Rule 8(5) of the Security Enforcement Rules, on these grounds the applicant prays to set aside the Auction sale notice dated 17.08.2023 and the scheduled sale on 22.09.2023.

¶34

The respondent has filed a detailed counter along with the supporting documents contending that the applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands.

¶35

It is the case of the bank that the Applicant approached the bank for business loan of Rs.20,14,021/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fourteen Thousand and Twenty one only) which was repayable in 84 EMI‟s of Rs.41,282/-. The applicant executed the loan documents and also deposited the title deeds vide Doc.No.823 of 2019

¶36

The bank has classified the Account has NPA (Non-Performing Asset) on 09.07.2021 due to default in the repayments and the Demand Notice was issued on 11.08.2021 under Section 13(2) calling upon the applicants to discharge the their liabilities in full within 60 days from the date of receipt. The bank has published the Demand Notice in Two Newspapers one in English “Business Standard” and another in Tamil “Hindu – Tamil” on

¶37

SA No. 486 of 2023

¶38

24.03.2025

¶39

¶40

30.08.2021, further the bank has issued the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 01.11.2021 and the same was also published on 04.11.2021 in English “Business Standard” and Tamil “Hindu-Tamil”, and the same is also affixed on the property.

¶41

As the applicant did not liquidate the liable, the bank has issued the Auction sale notice on 17.08.2023 and fixed the auction on 22.09.2023 and also published the Sale Notice in English “Business Standard” and in Tamil “Hindu Tamil” on 21.08.2023. The respondent bank has countered all the contentions as raised by the applicant in the present S.A. with supporting documents and countered the averments made in the para V of S.A.

¶42

It is seen that the Respondent bank ensures in their counter at page No.5, submits that the sale did not materialized and there are no successful bidders.

¶43

Heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the records of the case.

¶44

Admittedly the applicant is the proprietrix who has availed the loan and Mr. Ahamed Mansoor. L, the second applicant is the Guarantor to the loan availed by the applicant. Admittedly there is default in the repayment of the due amount, which resulted in classifying the account the account as NPA on 09.07.2021. In fact there is no dispute with regard to the creation of Mortgage and the bank has produced Memorandum of Title deeds vide Doc.No.823 of 2019 on 18.03.2019

¶45

SA No. 486 of 2023

¶46

24.03.2025

¶47

¶48

Due the default committed and after classification of the account as NPA, the bank has issued the Demand Notice and also produced the Postal Track Consignments which reflects the notice was not received by the applicants, hence the bank has also published the Section 13(2) Demand Notice on English “Business Standard” and Tamil “Hindu-Tamil” and also affixed the Section 13(4) Possession Notice on the scheduled property as mentioned in the page No.23 of the objections.

¶49

Hence the contentions of the applicant that Section 13 (2) was not received and come to knowledge of the applicant only after the receipt of the Section 13(4) of Possession Notice is not sustainable. The bank has sent the Section 13(4) Possession Notice by RPAD along with the Postal Track Consignments report and the notice sent is received by them, and the bank has published the Section 13(4) Possession Notice and also affixed the same on the property.

¶50

Thus the bank has compelied with the due procedures in issuing the Section 13(2) Demand notice as the applicant did not liquidate the liability within the period of 60 days nor raised any objections to the notices, bank had proceeded in issuing Section 13(4) notice.

¶51

The bank had produced the Section 13(4) Notice sent by RPAD and return covers along with the Possession notice published two Newspaper and have also affixed the photographs of the affixture of Possession notice on Page No.29.

¶52

SA No. 486 of 2023

¶53

24.03.2025

¶54

¶55

The present S.A. is filed challenging the sale notice, and the sale notice is published in English “Business Standard” and in Tamil “HinduTamil” on 21.08.2023. The prayers as sought for in the S.A. is to set aside the sale notice dated 17.08.2023 which has not materialized and the prayers sought under the S.A. has become infructuous.

¶56

With respect to the issuance of the Section 13(2) notice and Section 13(4) notice is duly countered by the Respondent Bank on producing all the documents for due service and after following the procedures as required under the Acts and Rules.

¶57

As the Prayers sought for in the S.A. has become infructuous, nothing survives for further no adjudication in the present S.A. and the bank has established of the Act and Rules for due compliance of the measures as mandatory under the Act and Rules.

¶58