Dismissed

M Manoharan v. Axis Bank

DRT24 Mar 2025SA/627/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's Securitization Application challenging a Sale Notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, holding the application infructuous as the scheduled auction had concluded without successful bidders. The court also noted the delays in challenging prior notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4).

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application was dismissed as infructuous; the Sale Notice is implicitly upheld.

M Manoharan versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 627of 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.627 of 2023

¶9

M. Manogar S/o. Munusamy No.2/164A, Mariyamman Koil Street, Puthagaram Village, Nallanpillaipetral Post, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District – 604 152. ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer M/s. Axis Bank Limited 2^nd Floor, Door No.31, Old No.14, South Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s M. Prabakar Counsel for Respondent : M/s V. Kvp. Deepak Raj

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 01.11.2023

¶16

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].

¶17

SA No. 627of 2023

¶18

24.03.2025

¶19

¶20

The Applicant has filed the present S.A. challenging the Sale Notice dated 07.10.2023, scheduling the property to be sold on 28.11.2023, the Applicant admits, availing of the CCAGR Loan of Rs.7.00 Lakhs on 31.10.2015 and claims to have mortgaged the agricultural land along with the vacant house as security.

¶21

It is contended that he has made a payment of Rs.3.00 lakhs and without considering the natural calamity occurred in the year 2020, the bank has classified the account as NPA (Non-Performing Asset) and have issued the demand notice u/s. 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 04.11.2019, After the receipt of the demand notice u/s. 13(2) the applicant explained his inability in making the repayment and without looking into the explanation the bank has issued the Possession Notice u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on 28.01.2020 and the applicant was shocked to see the outstanding amount mentioned in the sale notice.

¶22

The applicant was shocked and surprised that sale notice has been issued by the respondent on 07.10.2023 wherein the bank has notified the sale on 28.11.2023, The fixation of sale price is lower than the actual guideline value of the secured asset and prays to set aside the sale Notice dated 28.11.2023

¶23

The Respondent bank has filed a detailed counter, countering all the contentions raised by the applicant and have produced the copy of the

¶24

SA No. 627of 2023

¶25

¶26

24.03.2025

¶27

Demand Notice dated 04.11.2019 with its acknowledgement cards, Further the bank has issued the Possession Notice on 28.01.2020 which is duly received by the applicants here in, as per the Acknowledgement cards, and bank has also affixed the Possession Notice on the mortgaged property. The bank further, have issued the paper publication of the Possession Notice in two leading Newspapers one in The New Sunday Express and Dhinamani on 02.02.2020

¶28

The bank produced, a copy of the sale notice dated 07.10.2023 and the postal acknowledgement cards and paper publications, The bank denied the averment made in the S.A. & further contends in para 13 of their objections as there was no successful bidders, property was not sold in auction on 28.11.2023 and prays to dismiss the S.A. as infructuous.

¶29

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

¶30

There is no dispute with regard to the availing of the credit facility and the mortgage of the property as collateral security. Due to the default in repayment, the bank has initiated the measures under the SARFAESI Act, after classifying the account as NPA and have issued the Section 13(2) Demand Notice on 04.11.2019 and the Section 13(4) Possession Notice dated 28.01.2020

¶31

SA No. 627of 2023

¶32

24.03.2025

¶33

¶34

In spite of services of the notices, applicant did not liquidate the liable, hence the bank has proceeded further and issued the Sale Notice dated 07.10.2023 which is challenged in the present S.A. The prayers as sought for in the S.A. is to set aside the sale notice dated 07.10.2023 which has become infructuous as the sale did not materialize.

¶35

There are no challenge to the Section 13(2) Demand Notice and Section 13(4) Possession Notice within a period of 45 days as required under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. As the prayers of the S.A. has become infructuous, nothing service in the present S.A., for further no adjudication, Accordingly S.A. stands dismissed as infructuous.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 24^th day of March, 2025)

M Manoharan v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Manoharan v. Axis 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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Ari Travels

Syndicate Bank versus M/S Siva Sakthi Metals

Canara Bank versus Mercury Enterprises Rep By Mr D Senthilkumar And Other

Union Bank of India versus M s Pix Carve Rep by its Partners and Two others

Axis Bank versus Mrs K Akamala Selvam

Anees Fathima versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.