Allowed

Gfreat Madras Builders v. State Bank of India

DRT4 Aug 2022SA/117/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the anticipative application to remit the sale notice in a SARFAESI case. Permitted the applicant to pay a negotiated lump sum to the auction purchaser and the bank, triggering cancellation of the sale certificate, and vacated the interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice remitted; applicant permitted to remit negotiated amounts to forego suit against him; auction purchaser to forego property by cancelling sale certificate upon letter effecting same.

Gfreat Madras Builders versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 117 of 2022 04.08.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 04^th day of August, 2022

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 117 of 2022

¶7

M/s.Great Madras Builders

¶8

Rep. by its Proprietor Mohammed Rafee S/o.M. S. Abdul No.3, Yadhavai Street MTH Road, Padi Chennai – 600 050 ….Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s.State Bank of India

¶11

Asset Recovery Management Branch Rep. by Authorised Officer No.44, Eldams Raod, 1^st Floor Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s K. Bhuvaneswari Counsel for Respondent : M/s. N. Kishore Kumar & A.K. Vidhya

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 24.02.2022 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 25.03.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,28,384/from applicant.

¶16

Heard Ld. counsels appearing for the respective parties. It is submitted by all the

¶17

parties concerned that they had entered into negotiated settlement of their debt with respondent bank. Ld. counsel further submitted that respondent bank had considered

¶18

¶19

S.A. 117 of 2022 04.08.2022

¶20

their request for reduction of expenses incurred by them with regard to the determination of mortgage against the property. Notwithstanding the above contentions, it is also the case of applicant that he has negotiated with auction purchaser for settling his amount and for retaining the property for himself by reimbursing the negotiated amounts payable to both auction purchaser as well as the respondent bank.

¶21

As parties have rescinded to a negotiated settlement, they are permitted to do so. In view of affidavit filed by auction purchaser to forego the property in favour of principal borrower for amounts to be reimbursed on a negotiated, mutually accepted amount, respondent bank will be entitled to cancel the sale certificate issued in favour of auction purchaser on receipt of letter from the auction purchaser to that effect. The principal borrower / applicant in SA No.117/2022 is permitted to cause remittance of the amounts as undertaken before this Tribunal without any issue for further litigation. Interim stay, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶22

With the above observations, this SA stands disposed.

¶23

A copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned as per extant guidelines.

¶24

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 04^th day of August, 2022)

¶25

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Gfreat Madras Builders v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gfreat Madras Builders v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arul Selvi versus Indian Bank

S Kavitha versus Bank of India

S Uthayakumar versus Indian Overseas Bank

Suseel versus Indian Bank

Mrfs G Ellamal versus Indian Bank

Arefa Banu versus State Bank of India