The Tribunal disposed of an appeal filed against the dismissal of a stay application in a secured debt matter. The Tribunal directed the DRT Presiding Officer to decide the Sale Application on merits expeditiously and noted the subsequent disposal of the Sale Application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 11th of December, 2024
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON
M.A (SA): 7/2024
(IA No.882/2023 in SA No.48/2023 on the file of DRT-1, Ernakulam)
Between
… Appellants
And
… Respondents
Counsel for Appellant : Mr. T.Kamalakannan Counsel for Respondent : Mr. A.Jaishankar
1
ORDER
This Appeal is filed challenging the dismissal order in IA 882/2023 in SA 48/2023 of DRT-I, Ernakulum.
Learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that the Appellants filed the aforesaid SA No. 48/2023 challenging Sale Notice dated 31.12.2022 and seeking other reliefs as well.
Learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that there are a lot of irregularities and violation of Rules in issuance of Sale Notice and procedural mandate is not followed in issuance of Sale Certificate. The value of the property as on 16.03.2023, was Rs.1,54,87,400/-, as per the approved Valuer. However, the property was sold for Rs.64.25 Lakhs. It is his further submissions that the property was sold to their tenant’s close relative, and their tenant and Authorised Officer, colluded together for selling the property at low price.
2
Thus, he seeks to set aside the Order passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ernakulam.
In reply, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submitted that the challenge in SA 48/2023 was to declare the issuance of Sale Notice dated 31.12.2022 as null and void ;. It is further submitted that, in pursuance of Sale Notice dated 31.12.2022, no sale had taken place on 25.01.2023. The sale had taken place only on the basis of the subsequent Sale Notice dated 27.01.2023 fixing the sale on 23.02.2023. Therefore, the SA itself has become infructuous .
In view of the submission made, this Tribunal finds that the Appeal filed against the dismissal of Stay Application can be disposed of giving the direction to the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ernakulam, to dispose of the SA on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
3
Accordingly, the Appeal M.A (S.A):7/2024 is disposed of.
Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if
any, stand closed.
[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 11th of December, 2024]
Sd/-
[ Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the dismissal of a stay application, filed regarding a sale notice and alleged irregularities in the sale process, can be disposed of by remanding the matter to the DRT.
Whether the appellants' settled Sale Application has become infructuous after a subsequent sale notice was issued.
M/s. Ferrous Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Faizal Abdul Samad
Faizal Abdul Samad
The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India
The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
19 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
