1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

Dated the 17^th of June, 2022

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar

CHAIRPERSON

RA (SA) 20/2021

Between

A.T. Maideen,

No.81, Old No.35/1,

Sait Colony, Second Street,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

……Appellant

And

The Authorised Officer cum Chief Manager,

Union Bank of India,

55/61, McNichols Road,

Buckingam Terrace,

Chetpet,

Chennai – 600 031.

…..Respondent

2

ORDER

1. This Appeal is against the Orders of Learned Presiding

Officer, DRT-I, Chennai dated 18.05.2020 in SA No.101/2018.

2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-

Appellant herein filed SA 101/2018 challenging Possession

Notice dated 06.07.2018 of Respondent Bank contending that the

same is illegal, arbitrary, misconceived and not in accordance

with the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interests Act, 2002,

(hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act). Appellant also

contended that classification of account as NPA is incorrect and

Notice issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, has not

indicated the date of NPA. Appellant also contended that

Authorised Officer of Respondent Bank did not give any reply to

Objections of Appellant to Demand Notice dated 09.05.2018.

Respondent Bank disputed the contentions of Appellant, and

contended that Bank followed the procedure under SARFAESI

3

Act, 2002, and as Appellant committed default, Bank initiated

action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. On

consideration of contentions and rival contentions of both parties,

Tribunal below dismissed Securitisation Application holding that

there is no merit or substance on the contentions of Appellant and

the measures initiated by Respondent Bank are in conformity

with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Aggrieved by said

Order, present Appeal is preferred.

3. Both sides filed Written Arguments and Learned Counsel of

both parties reiterated the same during oral submissions.

4. Learned Advocate for Appellant submitted that Authorised

Officer of Respondent Bank issued Section 13(2) Notice on

09.05.2018 and Appellant has not challenged the said Notice. He

further submitted 33 days after issuance of Section 13(2) Notice,

Bank issued Notice dated 13.06.2018 claiming Rs.87,16,377/-

together with interest and asked Appellant to pay the said sum

within 7 days from the date of receipt of said Notice, for which,

Appellant through his Advocate gave Reply on 27.06.2018

4

informing Bank that Notice issued by Bank is received by

representative of Appellant and as the representative was unable

to contact Appellant, who was out of city, requested Bank to grant

some more time so that Appellant will settle the loan amount after

reaching city. He submitted that Bank issued Possession Notice

dated 06.07.2018 contrary to the provisions of SARFAESI Act,

2002, without waiting till completion of 60 days, and therefore,

Possession Notice is contrary to law, and Appellant challenged the

said Notice. It is submitted that steps taken by Authorised Officer

of Respondent Bank are in complete violation of the provision of

SARFAESI Act, 2002. He further submitted that when Appellant

made a Representation dated 27.06.2018 informing that Appellant

would settle the loan amount, Respondent Bank, without giving

any Reply to the said Representation as required under Section

13(3A) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, proceeded ahead and took

symbolic possession of secured asset on 06.07.2018, without

following guidelines and overlooking the mandatory provisions of

SARFAESI Act, 2002, and thereby, the measures initiated are

against the law and is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that

in spite of such glaring mistake on the part of Respondent Bank,

5

Tribunal below recorded a finding that the measures initiated by

Respondent Bank are in conformity with the SARFAESI Act