Uco Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal by UCO Bank against DRT order setting aside sale notice due to alleged violation of 60-day notice period under SARFAESI Act. Tribunal held period calculated from service date; Tribunal set aside sale. DRTA allowed appeal, held 60 days calculated from notice date, and order set aside.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order dated 22.09.2022 set aside; Securitisation Application dismissed; SA 04/2022 dismissed.
What the court decided
RA (SA) 1/2023
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 11th of August, 2023
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON
RA (SA) 1/2023
in
(SA 04/2022 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)
Between
The Authorised Officer, UCO Bank, Dharmapuri Branch, No.102, Bypass Road, Four Roads, Dharmapuri – 636 701
…. Appellant
AND
- Mr. M. Jayachandran, S/o, D. Muthusamy (Late), No. 50/100, A. Adhiyaman Bypass Road, Near Saravana Bhavan Hotel, Dharmapuri – 636 701.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the requirement of 60 days under Section 13(2) is calculated from the date of issuance of the Demand Notice or from the date of service/receipt.
Whether the Appellant was entitled to set aside the Securitisation Application allowing the sale of the property given the error in calculating the 60-day period.
Whether the impugned order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowing the Securitisation Application is sustainable in law.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
The Authorised Officer, UCO Bank, Dharmapuri Branch
- respondent
Mr. M. Jayachandran
- respondent
Mr. Subramanian Rajasekar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
12 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court