The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed against a sale notice issued by the respondent bank. The Tribunal held that since the appeal had no meaning in the context of pending proceedings and the lib to proceed further, it was disposed of without meaning.
Appeal dismissed; parties to bear own costs.
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.
sIN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 11th day of February, 2025
PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
CHAIRPERSON
RA(SA) 24/2023
(a rising out of SA No.78/2020 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)
Between
1. M/s Padam Chand Kothari S/o Mohanlal Kothari, Purasawakkam, Chennai 600 007.
2. Mrs. Prakash Devi Kothari, Spouse of Padam Chand Kothari 10/9, Mookathal Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai 600 007.
3. Rakesh Kothari, S/o Padam Chand Kothari, 10/9, Mookathal Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai 600 007.
…..Appellants
And
The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank Wall Tax Road Branch, No.22, Ramanan Road, Chennai 600 079.
…..Respondent Bank
Counsel for Appellants : Shri Gajalakshmi Karan Counsel for respondent bank : Shri K. Radhakrishnamurthy
1
ORDER
2
bank has not filed its counter and typed set of documents despite affording several adjournments. When that be the case, it is not known why this appeal is filed, when fresh Sale Notice was issued and that has also been challenged by a separate proceeding. There is a specific observation made in the impugned order that respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law in case of default of borrower continues. It is informed that default of borrower continued and therefore fresh sale notice was issued and challenging the same, SA 335/2022 was filed by the appellants which is still pending. In such circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that filing of this appeal has no meaning and deserves to be dismissed.
[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 11th February, 2025)
Sd/-
(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed against the sale notice issued under SARFAESI Act deserves to be dismissed in view of concurrent pending proceedings and the specific observations in the impugned order.
Liability of parties to bear costs in dismissed appeals.
M/s Padam Chand Kothari and Ors.
The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
As recorded by the court registry
25 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
