Allowed

Ms Swathi R v. Union Bank of India

DRT17 Oct 2022SA/215/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DT allowed a Section 17 application challenging a SARFAESI sale notice issued for Rs.12,55,000/. Disposing the matter without cost, the tribunal directed the bank not to debit sale expenses and granted liberty to initiate fresh sale action if the default continues.

What did the court decide?

SA allowed without cost; respondent directed not to debit sale notice expenses; liberty granted to initiate fresh sale action.

Ms Swathi R versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 215 of 2022 17.10.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 17^th day of October, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 215 of 2022

¶7

1. Ms.Swathi.R

¶8

D/o.Rajendran No.3, Anjaneyar Koil Street Vellavedu

¶9

Thiruvallur – 600 124

¶10

2. Mr.Nithyabama

¶11

S/o. Rajendran No.3, Anjaneyar Koil Street Vellavedu Thiruvallur – 600 124 ….Applicants Vs.

¶12

The Authorised Officer M/s. Union Bank of India T.H.Road, Vellavedu Post Thiruvallur District – 600 124 ….Respondent

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. S.Krishnamoorthy, Vaidu Riya & K.Sindhuja Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S.Pathasarathy

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 25.02.2022 issued by

¶17

respondent bank scheduling sale to 29.04.2022 for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,55,000/-.

¶18

No representation for applicants. Heard Ld. Counsel for respondent bank.

¶19

¶20

S.A. 215 of 2022 17.10.2022

¶21

It is the case of respondent bank that the impugned sale notice could not be served upon the borrowers and that there was one day short to the statutory limit as laid down in the law. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank submits that no sale has taken place on the scheduled date for want of bidders and therefore the impugned sale notice has become infructuous. Ld. Counsel further submits that appropriate orders may be passed with liberty to the respondent bank to initiate fresh sale notice.

¶22

In the circumstances, as respondent bank had conceded to the infirmities while issuing the impugned sale notice, the present SA is liable to be allowed. Accordingly SA stands allowed however without cost. Respondent bank is directed not to debit the sale notice expenses to the borrowers’ loan account.

¶23

Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated. Liberty be with respondent bank to initiate action afresh if the default of the borrowers continues.

¶24

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶25

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

¶26

guidelines.

¶27

(Dictated to Stenographer(DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 17^th day of October, 2022)

¶28

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

Ms Swathi R v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Swathi R v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Nazar versus Karur Vysya Bank

Asg Enterprises versus Punjab National Bank

Mr a G Vengalvarayan versus Axis Bank

Mr S Murugan versus Jm Financial Products Ltd.

Kanchana S versus Union Bank of India

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr Mohamed Faz and another