Dismissing a SARFAESI application challenging a sale notice for alleged lack of valuation and reduced reserve price, the tribunal held no tenable infirmity existed as respondents followed statutory procedure, noting the notice had become infructuous as no sale occurred.
SA dismissed without costs; interim orders vacated; pending IAs closed.
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.
1
S.A. 138 of 2022 12.09.2022
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 12th day of September, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 138 of 2022
Mr.P.C.Bhaskar
S/o. Mr. P.K.Chandrasekar No. 89, Poes Garden Teynampet
Chennai – 600 086 ….Applicant
Vs.
1. The Authorised Officer
CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Ltd 1St floor, Wakefield House Sprott Road
Ballard Estate
Mumbai – 400 038
2. The Authorised Officer
India Bulls Housing Finance Limited Door No.20 Apex Chambers III floor, Thiyagaraya Road T.Nagar Chennai – 600 017 ….Respondents
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. G.Sanjeevi Counsel for Respondent : M/s. T.Sai Krishnan, R.Saravanan & A.Adhi Chakravarthy
ORDER
2
S.A. 138 of 2022 12.09.2022
3
S.A. 138 of 2022 12.09.2022
mortgaged properties to sale. Ld. counsel for respondent submits that there are no infirmities in the procedure adopted by the respondent while issuing the subject impugned sale notice as all the procedures and formalities as warranted under the Act
and the Rules made thereunder, have been duly followed. Respondent had demonstrated through their typed set of documents, the procedure adopted by them while issuing the impugned sale notice, which are found to be in accordance to law. The elaborate counter and typed set of documents evidenced the stages of litigation at the behest of the borrower / applicant herein thwarting all the lawful actions of the respondent for recovery of its dues. Ld. counsel further submits that consequent upon the earlier actions of the respondent, having been set aside by DRT-II, which have been apparently allowed in an appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT holding the actions of the respondent, valid under the Act upto the stage of Possession Notice, the present impugned sale notice came to be issued.
4
S.A. 138 of 2022 12.09.2022
guidelines.
(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 12th day of September, 2022)
Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sale notice issued under SARFAESI Act containing alleged infirmities in procedure warrants interference?
Whether the applicant can show tenable infirmities calling for interference by the Tribunal over the procedure adopted?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.C. Bhaskar
CFM Asset Reconstruction Private Ltd
India Bulls Housing Finance Limited
Ganapathi K.R.K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
