Disposed

Mr Balasubramaniam M v. Canara Bank

DRAT4 May 2022MISC APPEAL/29/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of an appeal against an interim order regarding the deposit of funds and sale of properties. Since the main sale application remained pending, the Tribunal directed the lower tribunal to decide it within two months to determine the parties' rights. The interim order on status quo continues till disposal of the main case.

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower Tribunal to decide the pending sale application SA No.395/2020 within two months; interim status quo order to continue till disposal.

Mr Balasubramaniam M versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

M.A(S.A):29/2021

¶3

M.Balasubra maniam ... Appellant

¶4

¶5

Canara Bank ... Respondent

¶6

04/05/2022

¶7

Representing counsel Shri A. Periasamy for Ld. Counsel Shri V.P. Parivallal for appellants and Ld. Counsel Shri R. Umasuthan for respondent bank are present.

¶8

Heard both sides.

¶9

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.11.2020 in IA 1524/2020 in SA 395/2020 passed by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore.

¶10

From the submissions made by both sides, it is clear that Tribunal below directed the appellant herein to deposit a sum of Rs.28.00 lakhs in the impugned order dated 27.11.2020.

¶11

This Tribunal, while considering waiver application on 10.3.2021, directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs in two instalments, out of which, first instlament of Rs.15.00 lakhs within a period of four weeks from 10.3.2021 and second instalment of Rs.5.00 lakhs within four weeks thereafter.

¶12

It is represented that order of this Tribunal has been complied and the amount is lying with the Tribunal, as directed vide order dated 10.3.2021.

¶13

Advocate for respondent bank submitted that sale notice was issued and out of three properties, two properties were sold and one could not be sold because of the status quo order passed by this Tribunal.

¶14

Both sides requested that appeal can be disposed of by directing the Tribunal below to decide the main SA in a time bound manner so that rights of both parties can be determined in the main case.

¶15

Admittedly, main SA is still pending. Considering the submissions of both sides and the fact that the appeal is only against an interim order, which already culminated by way of deposit of Rs.20.00 lakhs before this Tribunal, I deem it proper to direct the Tribunal below to decide SA No.395/2020 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶16

Both parties shall cooperate with the Tribunal below in giving effect to this direction and the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 10.3.2021 shall continue till disposal of SA No.395/2020.

¶17

With the above direction, MA(SA) 29/2021 is disposed of. No costs.

¶18

Sd./Chairperson

Mr Balasubramaniam M v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Balasubramaniam M v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

S S Vasan versus Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Madras Gange Room Equipment (P) Ltd.

M/s.Canara Bank & Anr. versus M/s.Spun Silk (India) Ltd. & Ors.

Ms Venkatalakshmamma Subbaiah Setty Education and Charitable Trust versus Canara Bank

Platinum Trade Centre versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

State Bank of India versus The Repatriates co-operative Finance Ltd. & Ors.