Disposed

Sri Laxmi flour mills company v. South Indian Bank

DRAT26 Sept 2023MISC APPEAL/23/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DTAT Chennai disposed of an appeal challenging an interim order under the Securitisation Application. The tribunal directed the DRT to decide the main application expeditiously and ordered status quo on unsold properties pending disposal.

What did the court decide?

The revised Notice Amount deposited by the Appellant shall be treated as payment. Status quo is granted on three properties pending disposal of SA 183/2023 or for three months.

Sri Laxmi flour mills company versus South Indian Bank — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

MA (SA) 23/2023

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 26^th of September, 2023

¶4

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

¶5

MA (SA) 23/2023

¶6

[IA 1000/2023 in SA 183/2023 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore]

¶7

Between

¶8

M/s. Sri Laxmi Flour Mills Company, Rep. by its Partners, 290/387, Sathy Road, Erode – 638 003.

¶9

V. Kumarasamy, Partner M/s. Sri Laxmi Flour Mills Company, D. No.16, Vivekanandar Salai, Narayanavalasu, Erode – 638 011.

¶10

K. Anand Kumar, Partner M/s. Sri Laxmi Flour Mills Company, D. No.16, Vivekanandar Salai, Narayanavalasu, Erode – 638 011.

¶11

K. Sathishkumar, Partner M/s. Sri Laxmi Flour Mills Company, D. No.16, Vivekanandar Salai, Narayanavalasu, Erode – 638 011.

¶12

…. Appellants

¶13

AND

¶14

The Authorised Officer, The South Indian Bank, RO, Coimbatore, PB No. 3868, 1084/1-5, Trichy Road, Sungam, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶15

…..Respondent Counsel for Appellants : Sr. Advocate Mr. E. Om Prakash for Mr. R. Chandra Sekar Counsel for Respondent : M/s. M.L. Ganesh

¶16

¶17

MA (SA) 23/2023

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Appeal is preferred against an Interim Order dated 24.03.2023 in IA 1000/2023 in SA 183/2023 of DRT, Coimbatore, wherein Tribunal below directed Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.3 Crores in two instalments, and on depositing such amount, Respondent Bank shall not confirm the Sale, if any, is held on the scheduled date of auction.

¶20

Heard both sides.

¶21

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for Appellants submitted that the conditional Order could not be complied with; in the meantime, out of total four properties, Sale is confirmed and Sale Certificate is issued in respect of the property described in item No. 2. It is further submitted by Learned Senior Advocate, the Appellants deposited a sum of Rs.3.5 Crores before this Tribunal as condition to entertain the Appeal, and now, the Appellants are giving consent to transfer said amount to Respondent Bank to be credited to

¶22

¶23

MA (SA) 23/2023

¶24

the account, and that, a direction may be given to Tribunal below to dispose of the main SA, as expeditiously as possible. He further submitted, since the other three properties are yet to be sold, status quo may be granted in respect of the other three properties.

¶25

Advocate for Respondent Bank submitted that out of four properties, possession is taken in respect of two properties; one property is sold, and in respect of other property, possession is not taken. All these aspects are to be decided in the Securitisation Application, because the measures taken by Respondent Bank are under challenge.

¶26

Both sides submitted that they would co-operate with DRT in deciding Securitisation Application, at an early date. It is further represented that the DRT may be directed to decide the main SA, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein and also in Interlocutory Application IA 1000/2023.

¶27

¶28

MA (SA) 23/2023

¶29

Considering the submissions of both sides, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the DRT, Coimbatore, to decide Securitisation Application SA 183/2023, on merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this Appeal or any of the observations made in the impugned Order dated 24.03.2023. Both parties shall co-operate with DRT, Coimbatore.

¶30

It is further clarified that as Appellants undertook to pay the balance Notice amount, at an earlier date, and they also filed an Affidavit to that effect today, parties shall maintain status quo , in respect of other three properties, with effect from today, till the disposal of SA 183/2023 or three months period, whichever is earlier.

¶31

¶32

MA (SA) 23/2023

¶33

In view of my above observations, Appeal

¶34

MA (SA) 23/2023 is disposed of. No order as to costs. All

¶35

pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶36

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 26^th of September, 2023]

¶37

[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON

¶38

Sri Laxmi flour mills company v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Laxmi flour mills company v. South Indian 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

Mr K Ramasamy versus Ao,Arcil

V S Senthil Kumar versus State Bank of India

M/s. V.K.S. Agro Foods Hi-Tech Rice Industry versus Idbi Bank

Mira Exports versus Bank of India

V.S.Rajendran versus SBI

M/s.Medicare Pharma & Ors. versus Canara Bank