Allowed

Kmadeshwaran v. State Bank of India

DRT14 Feb 2025SA/840/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai allowed the Securitization Application filed by a borrower impugning a possession notice issued by the State Bank of India. The Tribunal set aside the notice due to the respondent bank's failure to appear or submit objections despite being served notice, citing the statutory obligation to adjudicate such matters expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Possession Notice dated 10.10.2024 is set aside. Respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law if the default of the borrower continues.

Kmadeshwaran versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

SA No.840/2024

14.02.2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 840 of 2024

¶8

Sh. K. Madeshwaran S/o Sh. Kannan D.No.3/600 K1, DC Periyasamy Colony Nelli Nagar, Dharmapuri – 636 701 ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorised Officer State Bank of India Dharmapuri Branch Nethaji Bypass Road[832] Dharmapuri – 636 701 ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s P.K. Rajakopal None for respondent bank

¶13

ORDER ON SA No. 840 OF 2024

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed on 22.11.2024 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].

¶15

The applicant is borrower, who has filed the present S.A impugning to set aside the Possession Notice dated 10.10.2024 issued by respondent bank under Section 13(4) of the Act, for recover of a sum of Rs.52,52,971/- due as on 14.05.2024.

SA No.840/2024

14.02.2025

This case was moved before this Tribunal on 28.11.2024 by the applicant. IA No.2336/24 for stay was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2024, directing respondent bank to maintain status quo subject to the condition of applicant depositing 10% of the outstanding amount within one week and equal amount to be deposited within 30 days thereafter. Notice was ordered to respondent bank returnable by 28.01.2025.

¶20

On 28.01.2025, the matter got re-posted to 10.03.2025. The applicant had filed IA No.367/25 seeking permission to advance the hearing of SA from 10.03.2025 to any earlier date.

¶21

IA No.367/25 is listed for consideration before this Tribunal on 14.02.2025.

¶22

Heard counsel for applicant and perused records.

¶23

There is no representation for respondent bank even in the 2^nd round. It is seen from the records that the notice has been served on the respondent bank as per postal track receipt. The postal track receipt reflects that notice was served on 03.12.2024. It is further noted that there is no representation for the respondent bank from 03.12.2024 and none represents the matter even today.

¶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 the respondent bank, being a secured creditor was served with a notice of the SA on 03.12.2024 and inspite of receipt of the notice, there is no representation for the respondent bank nor they have filed any vakalat or objections countering all the contentions raised by the applicant in the SA.

¶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

SA No.840/2024

14.02.2025

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 bank under the Act, the present SA is only to be allowed

¶31

Accordingly, SA stands allowed. Possession Notice dated 10.10.2024 is hereby set aside. However, respondent bank 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/-

¶34

(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER,

¶35

DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶36

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

¶37

14^th day of February, 2025)

Kmadeshwaran v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kmadeshwaran v. State 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

Sri Raja Rajeshwari Transport versus Indian Bank

Naveen T versus Hdfc Bank

M K Sathya Narayana Prasad versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Gowtham Raja versus Indo Star Capital Finance Limited

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. arcil in its capacity as trustee of Arcil Sbps I Trust repy by its authorized officer Yuvek J versus v Ismail and others

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/S Shristi Construction Quipments