Allowed

Rathinavelu and Sundaravadivelu and Kanchanvelu and Mangayarkarasi v. New India Cooperative Bank Limited

DRT13 Mar 2025SA/738/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Securitization Application filed by borrowers challenging stay measures under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. Due to the respondent bank's failure to file a counter despite receiving notice and grants of adjournment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned court order and restored possession.

What did the court decide?

SA allowed, impugned order quashed, possession restored, bank directed not to include Section 14 expenses in loan account.

Rathinavelu and Sundaravadivelu and Kanchanvelu… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No.738 of 2024

¶2

13.03.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 738 of 2024

¶8

1.	Mr. G. Rathinavelu S/o Late Guruswamy No.1-C, Rahul Apartment, No.24, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018
2.	Mr. G. Sundaravadivelu S/o Late Guruswamy No.39, Sundareswaran Koil Street Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004
3.	Mr. Kanchanvelu S/o Rathinavelu No.1-C, Rahul Apartment, No.24, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018
4.	Mrs. Mangayarkarasi W/o Krishnan No.18, Kasthuri Mansion, Dr. P.V. Cherian, Cresent Road Behind Ethiraj College Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 -Vs-	….Applicant
M/s N Rep. New Prab	ew India Co-operative Bank Limited by its Assistant General Manager India Bhavan, A.V. Nagwekar Marg hadevi, Mumbai – 400 025	….Respondent
	Counsels on record / appeared:
	Counsel for Applicant :	M/s G. Vijayakumar
	Counsel for Respondent Bank :	M/s S. Vignesh

¶9

SA No.738 of 2024

¶10

13.03.2025

¶11

¶12

ORDER ON SA No. 738 OF 2024

¶13

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 21.10.2024 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 challenging the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.37728 of 2023, pursuant to measures initiated by respondent bank under Section 14, for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,87,86,996.83p due as on 22.07.2022.

¶15

This case was moved before this Tribunal on 22.10.2024 by the applicant. After hearing the applicant, keeping open the question of limitation, SA was directed to be numbered. After numbering, SA was taken up on 24.10.2024. Respondent bank was represented by counsel, Mr. Vignesh, who submitted that physical possession of Item No.3 of the schedule mentioned property, being a flat in Gandhi Nagar, Chennai has already been taken possession by the respondent bank as per instructions received that day morning from the bank. However, considering other grounds to be verified through counter and typed set of documents, respondent bank was directed to maintain Status quo except Item No.3, subject to applicant depositing 10% of the amount due, within 10 days and equal sum to be deposited within 45 days thereafter. SA paper book was served to counsel for respondent bank, who was directed to file counter by next hearing date and case is posted to 27.12.2024.

¶16

On 27.12.2024, applicant had filed memo reporting compliance of 1^st and 2^nd part of conditional order. From 27.12.2024, case was posted to 04.03.2025 for filing

¶17

SA No.738 of 2024

¶18

13.03.2025

¶19

¶20

counter and typed set of documents by respondent bank. However, respondent bank did not file their counter despite receiving copy of SA on 24.10.2024 and filing vakalat on 18.11.2024.

¶21

Heard counsels for applicant, respondent bank and perused records.

¶22

This SA is filed by applicant challenging the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.37728 of 2023.

¶23

On hearing the applicant and respondent bank, copy of SA was given to respondent bank on 24.10.2024 and the matter thus stood posted to 04.03.2025 for filing counter and typed set of documents by respondent bank.

¶24

The Respondent Bank being the secured creditor is bound to assist the Tribunal in adjudicating the matter with regard to the measures initiated by the Bank under the Act. It is seen from the records that despite receiving the SA copy on 24.10.2024 instance, respondent bank did not file counter or objections countering all the contentions raised by the applicant in the SA, despite availing two adjournments, viz., 27.12.2024 and 04.03.2025.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

SA No.738 of 2024

¶28

13.03.2025

¶29

¶30

Accordingly, SA stands allowed. Order passed by Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.37728 of 2023 dated 30.11.2023 is hereby set aside. Possession, if any taken, is restored with applicant / mortgagor. Respondent bank is directed not to include the subject impugned Section 14 measures expenses to the borrower’s loan account and file a memo to that effect before the Registry. Thereafter, respondent bank will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance to law, if the default of the borrower continues.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the

¶34

13^th day of March, 2025)

Rathinavelu and Sundaravadivelu and Kanchanvelu and Mangayarkarasi v. New India Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathinavelu and Sundaravadivelu and Kanchanvelu and Mangayarkarasi v. New India Cooperative Bank 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

Dhananjayan versus Indian Bank

Bkr Hotels versus Union Bank of India

Kayaar Exim versus Hdfc Bank

V Prabhakaran versus Union Bank of India

Mrs v Geetha versus Indian Bank

Subramani Ravi versus India Infoline Housing Finance Limited