E. Kumar Vs Authorised Officer (DRAT Chennai)
In the case of E. Kumar vs. Authorised Officer (DRAT Chennai), the appellant, a loan guarantor, filed an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the order passed in SA 295/2014 by the DRT-III, Chennai on 20.09.2018. The original SA sought to quash a possession notice dated 27.06.2014 issued under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in connection with the recovery of a loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The DRT dismissed the SA, prompting the present appeal.
The appellant raised several grounds for the appeal. He argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that no notice had been served with the necessary documents regarding the assignment of the debt from M/s. City Financial Consumer Finance Limited to Kotak Mahindra Bank. It was contended that the bank had not sent any legal notice or intimation letter to the appellant or other borrowers at the proper address. The appellant also challenged the validity of the tracking consignment report used to demonstrate service of notice, claimed that payments made by the primary borrower (his brother) were not credited, and argued that the authorised officer had not personally visited the secured asset during symbolic possession. Additionally, he submitted that the bank had not properly published notices in widely circulated newspapers, citing that the impugned order observed paper publication had been in newspapers with low circulation.
