Dismissed

Geetha and another v. Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

DRAT14 Jun 2024REGULAR APPEAL/19/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a Sale Certificate is only an administrative measure and consequential to the Sale itself. The Court noted that since the Sale was not challenged, the applicants could not contend that the Sale Certificate was illegal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal R.A (S.A):19/2024 was dismissed and pending Internal Applications were closed.

Geetha and another versus Union Bank of India (Corporation… — Specific Performance | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 14^th of June, 2024

¶3

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

¶4

RA (SA) 19/2024 (TSA 269/2023 on the file of DRT II, Chennai)

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

E. Geetha,

¶7

W/o V. Elumalai, No.30, Gandhi Street,

¶8

Kaveripakkam, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore- 632 508.

¶9

V. Elumalai, S/o K. C. Varadhan, No.30, Bazaar Street, Kaveripakkam, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore- 632 508.

¶10

…. Appellant

¶11

AND

¶12

The Authorsed Officer, Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporate Bank) Thiruparkadal Branch, No.6/2A, Thiruparkadal Road, Thiruparkadal, Kaveripakkam, Vellore District- 632 508.

¶13

¶14

M/s. Origin ITFS Pvt. Ltd.,

¶15

Rep. by Mr. M. Palani Kumar, Having Office at: Type DR V. S.I Estate Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041.

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

Counsel for Appellant	:	_M/s._K.R.Samratt and K. Jayaganga
Counsel for R1	:	Dr. S. Vidya
Counsel for R2	:	Mr. C. Russel Raj

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1. This Appeal is preferred changing Order dated

¶21

22.09.2023 in TSA No. 269/2023 of DRT-II, Chennai.

¶22

2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-

¶23

Appellants herein filed SA 48/2022 before DRT-I, Chennai, which was subsequently transferred to DRT-II, Chennai, and renumbered as TSA 269/2023, challenging Sale Certificate registered on 23.12.2021 as document No. 17798/2021 on the file of Sub Registrar, Ambattur and to direct first Respondent to pay compensation and to grant such other reliefs.

¶24

Bank resisted the Application contending that auction Sale Notice dated 10.01.2020 was received by Applicants on 22.01.2020 by fixing Sale on 06.02.2020 and denied all the allegations in Securitisation Application. It is further

¶25

¶26

contended that without challenging Sale and Sale Notice, the Application is devoid of merits and unsustainable.

¶27

Considering the contentions and rival contentions of both parties Tribunal below recorded a finding that Applicants, having received Sale Notice, did not choose to challenge the same, therefore, Bank proceeded with Sale and Applicants are estopped by principle of acquiesce . It is further recorded that issuance of Sale Certificate is not a ‘measure’ under Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, therefore, the Application is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

¶28

Aggrieved by said Order, present Appeal is preferred, contending that there is no affixture of Sale Notice and Sale Notice does not satisfy the clear mandate of 15 days and Tribunal below failed to consider the same. It is further contended that Tribunal below failed to consider that Authorised Officer did not follow SARFAESI Rules, 2002. It

¶29

¶30

is further contended that Tribunal below ought to have held

¶31

the entire proceedings under SARFAESI Act and only consequential issuance of Sale Certificate in favour of Respondent No.2, will not stand legal scrutiny and Bank should have been restrained from taking action and that Order of Tribunal below is liable to set aside.

¶32

3. Heard both sides.

¶33

4. Advocate for Appellants submitted that the Appeal is preferred challenging Tribunal’s Order. It is submitted that

¶34

SA is filed challenging Sale Certificate registered on 23.12.2021. After hearing the submissions, this Tribunal

¶35

requested Advocate for Appellants to clarify whether issuance of Sale Certificate is a ‘measure’ under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, which can be challenged under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for which, she relied on the Judgement of Hon’ble High Supreme Court in

¶36

Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank &

¶37

Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 19847/2017, and referred to paras

¶38

¶39

27 and 28 of said Judgement. As seen from above judgement, it is in respect of forfeiture of deposit made by Auction Purchaser, and the issue before Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether said aspect is part of measure under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 or not. But, here the issue is whether issuance of Sale Certificate is a ‘measure’ under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 or not, therefore the decision relied on by Advocate for Appellants has no bearing.

¶40

5. Admittedly, the Sale that took place on 22.10.2021 is not challenged for the reasons best known to Appellants. The only challenge is to Sale Certificate which is already registered on 23.12.2021. It is well settled law that issuance of Sale Certificate is only an administrative measure and consequential step for a Sale conducted as per SARFAESI provisions. I have already held in Appeal No. RA (SA) 152/2018 that issue of Sale Certificate is not a ‘measure’ and without challenging the Sale, party cannot be permitted

¶41

¶42

to contend that Sale Certificate is not in accordance with

¶43

law.

¶44

6. Tribunal below rightly considered this aspect and came to a right conclusion and I do not find any wrong in the Order of Tribunal below, which is challenged in this Appeal.

¶45

7. In view of the above, it is held that Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶46

8. Accordingly, Appeal R.A (S.A):19/2024 is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs.. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶47

[Dictated to P. Athistamani, PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, 14^th of June, 2024]

¶48

CHAIRPERSON

¶49

Geetha and another v. Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha and another v. Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Vasu Coco Resorts Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

A Ramasamy versus Dbs Bank Limited

A Ramasamy versus Dbs Bank Limited

Sundaram Home Finance Ltd. versus Shina P.S

Shine P Jacob versus South Indian Bank

Shri Chandrashekar T versus Vysya Cooperative Bank Ltd.