Allowed

Mr C Jagadeesan v. Bank of Baroda

DRT19 Sept 2022SA/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's special application challenging a bank's Sale Notice. The court found the bank failed to establish valid publication procedures, issued documents from the wrong date, and violated statutory timelines. Consequently, the sale notice was struck down, expenses disallowed, and the officer penalized.

What did the court decide?

Sale notice quashed; respondent bank directed not to debit sale notice expenses; Authorized Officer penalized with Rs.5,000.

Mr C Jagadeesan versus Bank of Baroda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2022)

SA No.03/2022

19-09-2022

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2022

¶6

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

¶7

S.A. No. 03/2022

¶8

Mr. C. Jagadeesan,

¶9

Proprietor: M/s. New Murugan Stores, No.1044, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Prithvi Nagar, Gummudipundi – 601 201 Thiruvallur District. .…Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda, Gummidipoondi Branch, Rettembedu Road, Opposite Malleeswari kalyana Mandapam, Gummidipundi – 601 201. ….Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.T. Senthil Kumaran Counsel for Respondent : M/s G.R. Lakshmanan

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 20.11.2021 issued by respondent bank scheduling sale to 08.12.2021 for recovery of a sum of Rs.36,17,423.32p from applicant.

¶16

No representation for applicant even during second round of call work.

SA No.03/2022

19-09-2022

Heard Ld. counsel appearing for respondent bank. It is submitted that respondent bank has followed all the procedures as warranted under law while issuing the impugned sale notice dated 20.11.2021 scheduling sale to 08.12.2021.

¶21

Ld. counsel has submitted that there are no bidders on the schedule date and therefore the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. However, on perusal, it is observed that the acknowledgement card furnished by the bank at page 33 of their typed set is dated 19.09.2017 and does not pertain to that of impugned sale notice dated 20.11.2021. It is not explained how the Ld. Counsel could submit blatantly that the acknowledgment card is that of the sale notice, when it pertains to some correspondence of the year 2017.

¶22

It is unfortunate that the respondent bank has tried to hoodwink this Tribunal by furnishing false documents, for establishing its actions. Notwithstanding the above the Authorized Officer of respondent bank has caused paper publication on 15.11.2021 while the notice is dated 20.11.2021, i.e., even prior to the generation of sale notice.

¶23

Respondent bank also could not establish how sale was fixed within the statutory period of 15 days time, assuming the impugned notice to be a second sale notice and that the earlier sale notice is valid in the eyes of law.

¶24

Since respondent failed to establish the procedure adopted by it while issuing the impugned sale notice, the present SA is liable to be allowed.

¶25

Accordingly, SA stands allowed. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the sale notice expenses to the borrower’s loan account. As the authorized officer had acted contrary to the provisions of law, it would be a fit case to impose costs of Rs.5000/- to

SA No.03/2022

19-09-2022

be recovered from Authorized Officer payable to TANKERS Foundation, Chennai for violating the norms while issuing the impugned sale notice and also furnishing wrong acknowledgement cards received earlier, to the Tribunal with a view to the mislead the Tribunal.

¶30

Liberty be with respondent bank to initiate further action under SARFAESI act if the default of the borrower continuous. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed.

¶31

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶32

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

¶33

guidelines.

¶34

(Dictated to Steno (GS), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this the

¶35

19^th day of September, 2022)

¶36

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

Mr C Jagadeesan v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr C Jagadeesan v. Bank of Baroda

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

R Ravindran versus Bank of Baroda

K Kaliyaperumal versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Lakshminarayanan versus Indusind Bank Limited

Fathima Gani versus Canara Bank

Sankar versus Icici Bank Limited

Mrs Mahalakshmi versus Mahindra Rural Housing finance Ltd.