Dismissed

Mrs.Poonam v. Bank of India

DRT26 Mar 2025SA/670/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application filed by a borrower challenging a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the application infructuous because the scheduled auction failed due to lack of bidders, and previous notices regarding demand and possession were valid and properly served. Relief: No substantive relief as the application was dismissed as i

What did the court decide?

The Securitization Application No.670 of 2023 stands dismissed as rendered infructuous. Interim orders granted, if any, are vacated.

Mrs.Poonam versus Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No. 670 of 2023

¶2

26.03.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 26^th day of March 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

SARFAESI APPLICATION No.670 of 2023

¶9

Mrs. Poonam, Flat No.1A & 1B First Floor 2/8, CSK Villa 2^nd Cross Street, Sylvan Lodge Colony, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010 ….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

The Authorised Officer Bank of India Asset Recovery Branch, Star House, Fourth Floor No.30, (Old No.17) Errabalu Street, Chennai – 600 001. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s G. Sanjeevi Counsel for Respondent : M/s K. Rajesh

¶14

ORDER ON SA 670/2023

¶15

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 26.12.2023

¶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. 670 of 2023

¶18

26.03.2025

¶19

¶20

Applicant is the borrower, has filed the present SA, challenging the Sale Notice dated 29.11.2023 issued by respondent bank, fixing the sale on 26.12.2023, for recovery of a sum of Rs.73,83,856.54/- and the prayer as sought for in the SA is to set aside the sale notice.

¶21

The case has put forth by the applicant that he availed a home loan of Rs.56,97,836/- in the year 2015 and was regularly repaying the amount without any default and applicant didn‟t allowed the account to become non-performing asset. However, the bank has classified the account has NPA and without considering the applicant‟s request hurriedly issued the sale notice dated 29.11.2023 fixing the sale on 26.12.2023 without serving the notice and demanded a sum of Rs.73,83,856.54/-

¶22

It is contended that the bank has not fixed the reserve price properly, in the grounds it is submitted that there is no demand notice or possession notice served to the applicants and the property is under valued and the sale notice does not contain proper measurement which is in violation of Rule 8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) rules..

¶23

The respondent bank has filed the vakalat have come on record and filed a detailed counter along with the supporting documents inter alia contending that the bank in the year 2015 had sanctioned a Housing Loan of Rs.56,97,836/- for the purchase of flat, which the applicant agreed to repay the loan in instalments. The applicant have deposited documents of

¶24

SA No. 670 of 2023

¶25

¶26

26.03.2025

¶27

title deeds pertaining to the flat bearing No.L-4, Fourth Floor, Veerapuram Village, situated at Bramin Street, Veerapuram Village and Panchayat, Mahindra World City, Kattankalttur Panchayat Union, Chengalpatu Taluk, and created mortgage by way of memorandum of deposit of title deeds which is registered as Doc. No.14551 of 2015.

¶28

As the applicant neglected to perform the loan contract and defaulted in repayment of instalments, the bank was constrained to classify the account as non-performing asset on 30.06.2017. The bank has issued Section 13(2) demand notice dated 16.09.2017 demanding the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.56,57,329.24 due as on 30.06.2017 within the period of 60 days

¶29

The said notice was sent on 25.09.2017 to the borrower‟s address by registered post and have produced the postal receipt and Acknowledgement cards. As the borrower didn‟t pay the outstanding amount, the Authorized officer of the bank took symbolic possession by delivering a Possession notice dated 05.12.2017 and the possession notice was sent to applicant

¶30

The Possession notice is also affixed on the property and photographs of affixture is also produced. Further the notice is published in Tamil daily “Dinamani” dated 19.02.2017 and in “New Indian Express” English daily dated 09.12.2017. Dispute the service of the notices applicant didn‟t come forward to clear the outstanding amount, hence the bank has issued a e-auction sale notice scheduling the sale on 13.08.2018 and

¶31

SA No. 670 of 2023

¶32

26.03.2025

¶33

¶34

23.11.2018. However the sale failed for want of bidders. Hence the bank has issued auction sale notice dated 29.11.2023 fixing the sale on 26.12.2023 for a outstanding amount of Rs.73,83,856.54 and affixed the reserve price of Rs.37,50,000/-

¶35

The auction sale notice was sent to the applicant on 08.12.2023 and the notice was also affixed on the property and have published in Tamil daily “Dinamani” dated 08.12.2023 and English daily “New Indian Express” dated 08.12.2023

¶36

The bank has put the property to auction after obtaining the valuation report by a registered valuer and on consultation with the secured creditor fixed reserve price and have produced valuation report dated 15.03.2021. Hence it is submitted that the bank has followed all the measures as prescribed under the law and prays for the dismissal of the present S.A.

¶37

Further the respondent bank has filed a memo on 24.03.2025 submitting that the applicant had filed S.A. on 26.12.2023 challenging the sale notice dated 29.11.2023 scheduling the sale to be held on 26.12.2023. However, there were no bidders for the auction on 26.12.2023, the sale notice have become infructuous and this S.A may be closed

¶38

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

¶39

SA No. 670 of 2023

¶40

26.03.2025

¶41

¶42

The applicant admits the availing of Housing Loan of Rs.56,97,836/in the year 2015, and there is no dispute with regard to the creation of the mortgage of the flat as collateral security towards the credit facility availed. 13. In fact there is no dispute to the default in the repayment resulting the classification of the account as NPA, after classification of the account as NPA bank has proceeded further and have issued Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 16.09.2017 which is produced by the bank at page No.6-8 of their counter.

¶43

In fact, the applicant does not dispute the issuance of the Section 13(2) demand notice. As the applicant did not liquidate the liabilities within the period of 60 days, the bank have issued Possession Notice dated 05.12.2017 and published the same in the two News papers one in Tamil Daily “Dinamani” dated 09.12.2017 and another in English Daily “New Indian Express” dated 09.12.2017 and the copies of the same are produced at page No.9 to 10. Though the applicant have received the Section 13(4) Possession notice on 15.12.2017 the same is not challenged before the Tribunal within the period of 45 days

¶44

Hence the bank has issued sale notice dated 29.11.2023 and have sent by RPAD which is duly received by the applicants and the same is also not disputed by the applicant here in. The sale notice is affixed on the schedule property and it is also published in the two News papers as required under the act. The copy of the sale notice, photograph of affixture

¶45

SA No. 670 of 2023

¶46

26.03.2025

¶47

¶48

of the sale notice, paper publication of the sale notice are produced by the respondent bank at page No.5 to 32.

¶49

The only contention raised by the applicant is that the property is under valued and the same allegation is countered by the respondent bank by producing valuation report dated 15.03.2022. It is seen that the bank, before putting the property to the auction have obtained a valuation report from registered valuer as required under the act. Further the applicant not obtained any valuation report in support of the contention raised nor filed a counter for valuation report filed by the respondent bank.

¶50

Further the challenge of sale notice dated 29.11.2023 has became infructuous as the sale didn‟t materialize as scheduled, as rendering the S.A as infructuous.

¶51

By the examination of the facts, the documents produced by the both the parties, it is evident that the responded bank has initiated the measures under the SARFAESI Act after classifying the account as NPA and have issued the Section 13(2) demand notice dated 16.09.2017 and Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 05.12.2017 by following all the procedures as required under the Acts and Rules made there under. As there is no challenge to the Section 13(4) notice within the period of 45 days and bank has proceeded further by issuing sale notice dated 29.11.2023 which is under challenged in the present S.A.

¶52

SA No. 670 of 2023

¶53

26.03.2025

¶54

¶55

The bank has produced all the documents and have established the due compliance of the procedures prescribed in issuing the Section 13(2) demand notice and Section 13(4) Possession notice. Hence the Section 13(2) Demand notice dated 16.09.2017 and Section 13(4) Possession notice dated 05.12.2017 are held as valid notices issued under the Act.

¶56

The present S.A challenging the sale notice dated 29.11.2023 has become infructuous and nothing survives for further adjudications

¶57

Accordingly, SA.No.670 of 2023 stands dismissed as rendered infructuous.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

(Dictated to Mogesh, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 26^th day of March, 2025)

Mrs.Poonam v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Poonam v. 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

1)M/S Charis Construction Pvt. Ltd, and Others versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Amazing auto consultant

M S Vijay Timbers and Saw Mill and Others versus Karur Vysya Bank

State Bank of India versus Adithyan

State Bank of India versus Ravikumar

Syndicate Bank versus Kirusthu Doss